On Fri, 29 May 2026 06:36:35 GMT, Jaikiran Pai <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Thanks you all for your support! This sounds like a reasonable plan to me.
>> 
>> How do you plan to solve point "3. For JDK 27, introduce a system 
>> property..."? Do you want to do this with the initial fix for 
>> [JDK-7036144](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-7036144), by wrapping the 
>> input stream and overriding available() or in a completely different way?
>> 
>> It's also just a week away from Rampdown Phase One for JDK 27, so we have to 
>> hurry up.
>
>> How do you plan to solve point "3. For JDK 27, introduce a system 
>> property..."? Do you want to do this with the initial fix for 
>> [JDK-7036144](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-7036144), by wrapping the 
>> input stream and overriding available() or in a completely different way?
> 
> The plan is to reintroduce the change that was done for JDK-7036144 and 
> enable that new behaviour only when the new system property is enabled. When 
> that system property isn't set (or disabled), which would be the default 
> case, then the implementation will continue with the long standing behaviour 
> of using `InputStream.available()`.

> Jai, Lance and I met today to go over the issues with GZIPInputStream. Here's 
> a summary of where we got to:

I'll admit to having lost track of the details of the functional root 
causes/issues here.

Just wanted to chime in to say that if we plan to introduce some form of 
modality in behavior, I wonder if it would be beneficial to try and avoid 
having a system property control behavior which is otherwise not reachable 
programmatically.

That is, all modalities should be reachable programmatically (choice of 
constructor/constuctor param), and any system property should simply flip the 
default mode for legacy code. Then the modes can be documented independently of 
the system property which won't need to hold much semantics.

Again, I don't know the details here, just a high-level input which may or may 
not be useful :-)

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/30925#discussion_r3322971085

Reply via email to