On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 11:55:44 GMT, Eirik Bjorsnos <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I think the PR is ready to be sponsored after this.
>>
>> Please see my comment regarding the end of central directory record.
>>
>> I would prefer to tweak that in a fashion similar to what I indicated as I
>> thought your original version was clearer. I understand what Martin was
>> indicating of the use of EOC and that could have been addressed by adding
>> _(EOC)_ or _ENDHDR_ after _end of central directory record_ to make it
>> clearer
>>
>> I will leave it up to you as to whether you want to make the change but it
>> would be clearer as I think we took a small step backwards.
>>
>> Either way you should not need a sponsor and should be good to integrated
>> when you are ready
>
>> I hear you but the option is not to use javadoc comments and use block
>> comments :-)
>
> I learned something new today: Javadoc comments and block comments are not
> the same!
So I changed the references to this ultimate ZIP structure to read like this:
'End of central directory record' (END header)
Example:
/**
* Validate that an 'End of central directory record' (END header)
* where the value of the CEN size field exceeds the position of
* the END header is rejected.
This way we stick to the 'official' ZIP verbiage but also allow using the
shorter 'END header'.
What do you think?
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/12231#discussion_r1148359628
