On Tue, 13 May 2025 06:12:11 GMT, Alan Bateman <al...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Is this comment just agreeing with the proposed behaviour stated here? >> >> At the moment the code prohibits "read-only && create". It's an illegal >> argument exception (see tests). >> >> The only allowed access mode options with "create" are "readWrite" or >> <no-option>, and in both cases you get back a ZipFileSystem for which >> "isReadOnly()" is false. We'd already agreed that any explicit access mode >> needs to always be honoured. > > I agree that read-only && create is a combination to be rejected. My comment > is about the update to the description of the "create" option. It's the first > row in the table and the changes suggests that it is forcing the file system > to be read-write. I think the wording for the "readOnly" option is > sufficient, meaning just one place to document the conflict between these two > options. Restored the original comment. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25178#discussion_r2091701008
