On 2010-03-05, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 05/03/2010, Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org> wrote: >> On 2010-03-04, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 04/03/2010, Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> The more I think about this, the more I believe we should make >>>> JarArchiveInputStream use the java.util.jar package rather than extend >>>> ZipArchiveInputStream - this would also mean we'd break the API of 1.0, >>>> though. >>> Seems good to me. >>> Presumably JarArchiveOutputStream should also be changed? >> Yes, as well as JarArchiveEntry. Neither of the three classes would >> subclass their Zip* counterparts anymore. That's the API breakage I was >> talking about. > Though I suppose the streams could still extend > archivers.Archive(In|Out)PutStream by composition with the java.util > classes Sure, that would be the idea. Implementing count and friends will involve a bit more coding but it doesn't look too hard. > - rather than extending them. This would perhaps reduce breakage > somewhat. IMHO there won't be many people out there who expect the streams to be subclasses of the Zip-streams. Things may be different fro the entry classes, but again I wouldn't expect too clients that would be broken. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
