The Right Thing is to have only one C Zip implementation, shared by launcher, zip_util, and pack200. And my change is one step towards that, but I'm not tackling the big job right now.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Xueming Shen <[email protected]> wrote: > > It looks fine...I hope you guys also have some tests over there to bring > in more confidence :-) > > It might be "easier" to simply update the original haveZIP64() with the > code > we have in zip_util.c in which we also try to read the end64 to verify if > we > really have one. Your choice though. > > -Sherman > > > On 03/25/2015 09:55 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote: > > Yeah, this review is kinda scary. There's a lot of technical debt here, > and this change only addresses some of it. > > A variant of this code is in use at Google. > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Martin Buchholz <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Xueming and Alan, >> >> I'd like you to do a code review. >> >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8073158 >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk9/0xffff-entries-zip-file/ >> >> Of course, the really correct thing is to have at most one zip >> implementation per programming language, but I'm not trying to fix that >> here (how many zip implementations does openjdk have?) >> > > >
