On Fri, 19 Jul 2024 15:16:01 GMT, Lance Andersen <lan...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>>> I understand the request here, but is there a current use case for needing >>> a custom Deflater? >> >> I think the primary use case is when you want to set a non-default >> compression level, e.g., "best" or "fast". This is a pretty normal thing to >> do and matches what people expect from the `gzip(1)` command line flags. >> Allowing a custom `Deflater` is the simplest way to accomplish this; it also >> solves some other less common use cases, e.g., you want to set "no >> compression" for an already compressed file, or you want to keep the >> `Deflater` open so you can gather stats or whatever. >> >>> Before adding additional features, I think GZIP could benefit with more >>> test coverage. >> >> Agreed. `GZIPOutputStream` does get some coverage in some of the >> `GZIPInputStream` tests, and this PR adds more testing, but certainly more >> is better. > >> > I understand the request here, but is there a current use case for needing >> > a custom Deflater? >> >> I think the primary use case is when you want to set a non-default >> compression level, e.g., "best" or "fast". This is a pretty normal thing to >> do and matches what people expect from the `gzip(1)` command line flags. >> Allowing a custom `Deflater` is the simplest way to accomplish this; it also >> solves some other less common use cases, e.g., you want to set "no >> compression" for an already compressed file, or you want to keep the >> `Deflater` open so you can gather stats or whatever. > > thank you Archie. I don't have an issue with the feature request, but given > this API has been around for since JDK 1.1 and there has not been a must have > push for this enhancement, I would prefer to focus on JDK-8322256 closed out > and adding more overall test coverage before tackling this. >> >> > Before adding additional features, I think GZIP could benefit with more >> > test coverage. >> >> Agreed. `GZIPOutputStream` does get some coverage in some of the >> `GZIPInputStream` tests, and this PR adds more testing, but certainly more >> is better. > > Yes which why we should look to add additional tests, including more coverage > from gzip files created via the gzip command line tool. @LanceAndersen, if you have time now I'd like to pick this one back up. A review for the CSR is also needed. Thanks for any comments. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20226#issuecomment-2594091292
