On 05/03/2010, Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org> wrote: > On 2010-03-04, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 04/03/2010, Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> The more I think about this, the more I believe we should make > >> JarArchiveInputStream use the java.util.jar package rather than extend > >> ZipArchiveInputStream - this would also mean we'd break the API of 1.0, > >> though. > > > Seems good to me. > > Presumably JarArchiveOutputStream should also be changed? > > > Yes, as well as JarArchiveEntry. Neither of the three classes would > subclass their Zip* counterparts anymore. That's the API breakage I was > talking about. >
Though I suppose the streams could still extend archivers.Archive(In|Out)PutStream by composition with the java.util classes - rather than extending them. This would perhaps reduce breakage somewhat. > Stefan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
