> On Jan 25, 2016, at 8:54 AM, Alan Bateman <[email protected]> wrote:
Somehow I missed this, sorry for the delayed response. >> >> Changed to BASE, i.e. Release.BASE >> > This looks better. Release.BASE is probably okay although it still feels like > Release.UNVERSIONED, esp. when it is defined as "Represents unversioned > entries”. Base entries imply to me the entries that are the “base” of the jar file. All multi-release jar files have to have a set of base entries that, as a whole, export the public API of the jar file (whether it’s multi-release or not). Versioned entries “override” base entries. I could have said “Represents base entries” but that seems a little circular. Actually base entries are the set of root entries minus the set of entries in the META-INF/versions directory ;-) > > I'm still wondering about the phrase "root entry" as it continues to give the > impression (to me anyway) that it's a resource in the root directory. To me they are a resource in the root directory, but I see your point. > I think "root" works in the JEP because it deals with simple resources like > A.class and B.class that are in the root directory but it's confusing when > there resources with a slash in the name. Add to this is the > META-INF/versions/<n> directories which are roots for the version specific > resources. I think part of the confusion is that the first mention of > "root entry" is in the second paragraph where it has "overrides the > unversioned root entry" without defining what it means. In summary, I'm > wondering whether you would be up for change the terminology so that "root > entry" isn't in the javadoc? Let me see what I can do.
