On Thu, 19 Mar 2026 20:52:06 GMT, Eirik Bjørsnøs <[email protected]> wrote:

>> ZipOutputStream::setComment  and other setXXf methods throw 
>> IllegalArgumentException vs ZipException  per the javadocs so we have a 
>> difference to deal as part of how we address the issue
>> 
>> We probably want wrapper method (or overloaded) for at least ZipOutputStream 
>> so we can avoid  multiple try/catch
>> 
>> Also, I am wondering if we should set the cause to an IAE for the thrown 
>> ZipException.  Not sure there is a huge win value-wise, but thought I would 
>> throw it out for discussion
>
>> ZipOutputStream::setComment and other setXXf methods throw 
>> IllegalArgumentException vs ZipException per the javadocs so we have a 
>> difference to deal as part of how we address the issue
> 
> Yes. I have not proposed any change there in this PR, just added the test to 
> document current behavior and make any future regressions visible. Did you 
> mean to suggest we take some other action here? 
> 
>> We probably want wrapper method (or overloaded) for at least ZipOutputStream 
>> so we can avoid multiple try/catch
> 
> I don't think I understand what you suggest here. You mean methods in 
> ZipCoder as Alan suggested? What do you think about my idea to consolidate 
> ZipCoder methods to throw mostly CharacterCodingException, as suggested in a 
> reply to Alan above?
> 
>> Also, I am wondering if we should set the cause to an IAE as the cause to 
>> the ZipException. Not sure there is a huge win valuewise, but thought I 
>> would through it out for discussion
> 
> I like it, swallowing exceptions is rarely a win.

> A quick prototype to declare toString (with overloads), getBytes, and 
> checkedHash as `throws CharacterCodingException` revealed no showstoppers. 

For reference, here's a sketch branch of what I had in mind in terms of 
consolidating on  CharacterCodingException:

https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/compare/master...eirbjo:zipcoder-consolidate-exceptions

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/30319#discussion_r2962821096

Reply via email to