Hi Lin, Sorry for not replying earlier, I thought I had.
I believe we should still flush out the API proposal on the CoreLibs alias before continuing to move forward with updates to the PR (as was suggested by both Alan and I) For example, the updates to the PR does not include any proposed changes to GZIPInputStream and this should be something we should come to an agreement on as it can possibly impact the direction. I am not sure we need to add multiple constructors to GZIPOutputStream as part of the proposed change. It would also be useful to know where is the actual pain point, that is, is there a tool or API not having these fields settable for that is causing an issue? I ask so that we can make sure that we are taking that into consideration. Please note, that I am not trying to discourage your contribution or work to date, I just want to make sure we get agreement on the way forward as it not only impact the PR, but the CSR which will be needed as well. Best Lance On Apr 26, 2021, at 7:40 AM, Lin Zang <lz...@openjdk.java.net<mailto:lz...@openjdk.java.net>> wrote: On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 08:54:06 GMT, Alan Bateman <al...@openjdk.org<mailto:al...@openjdk.org>> wrote: Dear All, May I ask your help to review this change? Thanks! BRs, Lin Dear All, May I ask your help to review this change? Thanks! @LanceAndersen Do you have cycles to help Lin? This proposal will require discussion, they may be case for the header to be a record for example. My personal view is that the PR should be set aside until there is at least at least some agreement on the API. Dear @AlanBateman @LanceAndersen, May I ask your help to review whether the usage of Record and Builder pattern is reasonable in the PR? Thanks BRs, Lin ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/3072 [cid:E1C4E2F0-ECD0-4C9D-ADB4-B16CA7BCB7FC@home] Lance Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037 Oracle Java Engineering 1 Network Drive Burlington, MA 01803 lance.ander...@oracle.com<mailto:lance.ander...@oracle.com>
