On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 15:28:59 GMT, Eirik Bjørsnøs <eir...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Jaikiran Pai has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> tiny typo fix in newly introduced documentation
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/zip/ZipFile.java line 87:
>
>> 85: // the ZipCoder instance is derived from the Charset passed to the
>> ZipFile constructor
>> 86: // and will be used for decoding the non-UTF-8 entry names and the
>> ZIP file comment.
>> 87: private final ZipCoder entryNameCommentCoder;
>
> The Source `ZipCoder` field had a `@Stable` annotation. Any reason why this
> did not survive the move?
Hello Eirik, the `ZipCoder` field here is `final` so it's doesn't require a
`@Stable` annotation. I realize this field in `Source` too was `final` and yet
it was annotated `@Stable`, but my understanding is that, that was redundant
and unnecessary. The documentation of `@Stable` states that a `@Stable` for
`final` fields is only relevant when the field is a array type, which it isn't
in the case here.
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/zip/ZipFile.java line 87:
>
>> 85: // the ZipCoder instance is derived from the Charset passed to the
>> ZipFile constructor
>> 86: // and will be used for decoding the non-UTF-8 entry names and the
>> ZIP file comment.
>> 87: private final ZipCoder entryNameCommentCoder;
>
> Since we do not have separate ZipCoders for decoding the different ZIP
> values, I'm not sure it's useful to put the field names ("name"/"comment")
> into the instance field name here. Especially if the comment already has this
> information.
>
> Could we call this just `zc` or `zipCoder`?
I have now renamed the field to `zipCoder`.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23986#discussion_r1990700514
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23986#discussion_r1990700773
