Hi Alan, Thank you for your comments. Here comes the next update... increasing the turnaround time a little bit 😊
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~clanger/webrevs/8213031.10/ > Thanks. I think you've addressed most of my points. The only thing that > isn't clear is the group owner as I thought we had converged on using > the zip file's group owner. If I read the code correctly then it uses > the file owner (and makes the assumption that defaultOwner is > initialized before initGroup is called). Ok, makes sense. I've updated the coding such that the zip's file owner would be the default owner, in case it can be retrieved. > In passing, the name of the PosixFileAttributeView implementation should > probably be ZipPosixFileAttributeView rather than > ZipFilePosixAttributeViewPosix. Also EntryPosix extends Entry, should > probably be PosixEntry. Not important as these are internal but noticed > them when scanning the changes. I changed the class names, hopefully to your liking. > Also in passing, there are several places using > AccessController.doPrivileged that are bit ugly due to the casting. The > doPrivileged methods are awkward to use with lambda expressions (not > your doing) but one approach that I find readable is to separate the > creation of the action, e.g. file the zip file owner it could be: > > PrivilegedExceptionAction<UserPrincipal> pa = () -> Files.getOwner(zfpath); > return AccessController.doPrivileged(pa). I updated these places. Seems more readable indeed. > In the same area, the code in initOwner catches UOE but that will always > be wrapped in PAE. Fixed. > > I have updated module-info a little bit to reflect the latest changes. Is it > now time to focus on the CSR? > > > The "For extended POSIX support ..." paragraph has the property name > from a previous iteration so I assume you'll update that. I think it > would be using to put quotes around the names too. It also specifies the > fallback group owner to be the file owner but I think we converged on > use the zip file's group owner where possible. > > A small bit of word smiting required but I think this is really close to > writing the CSR. I have updated the doc in module-info.java quite a bit. Please check. Is it time to work on the CSR now? How shall we proceed there? Thanks Christoph
