RFR - 8132734: java.util.jar.* changes to support multi-release jar files

[Xueming Shen]

On 01/28/2016 12:26 PM, Xueming Shen wrote:
> On 01/28/2016 11:28 AM, Steve Drach wrote:
>>> What's the purpose of having a dedicated "JarFile.runtimeVersioned”?
>> Consistency, so getVersion returns the same version as the version set when JarFile was constructed.
>>
>>> Based on
>>> its only usages at ln#356 and #381, it appears, shouldn't getVersion() simply
>>> returns Release.valueOf(version)?
>> That might be confusing.  Also, having it consistent helps with testing.
>>
>
>  144     private final int version;
>  145     private final boolean runtimeVersioned;
> ...
>  355         this.version = MULTI_RELEASE_FORCED ? RUNTIME_VERSION : version.value();
>  356         this.runtimeVersioned = version == Release.RUNTIME;
> ...
>  381             return runtimeVersioned ? Release.RUNTIME : Release.valueOf(version);
>
> What I meant is that if "version" is final and RUNTIME_VERSION is static final, why
> do we need the middle-man "runtimeVersioned". And it appears the implementation
> is doing at 381 is always actually to return Release.valueOf(version)?
>
> It returns Release.valueOf(version) if "runtimeVersioned" is false. But in case of
> "runtimeVersioned" is true, it means "version == Release.RUNTIME" at ln#356,
> so you can also return Release.valueOf(version)? I'm confused, what did I miss?

my bad. the "version" at #356 is not that final one.


>
> sherman
>
>
>
>>> sherman
>>>
>>> On 01/27/2016 03:37 PM, Steve Drach wrote:
>>>>> I'm still wondering about the phrase "root entry" as it continues to give the impression (to me anyway) that it's a resource in the root directory. I think "root" works in the JEP because it deals with simple resources like A.class and B.class that are in the root directory but it's confusing when there resources with a slash in the name. Add to this is the META-INF/versions/<n>   directories which are roots for the version specific resources. I think part of     the confusion is that the first mention of "root entry" is in the second paragraph where it has "overrides the unversioned root entry" without defining what it means. In summary, I'm wondering whether you would be up for change the terminology so that "root entry" isn't in the javadoc?
>>>> I’ve released a new webrev, http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sdrach/8132734/webrev.04/index.html<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sdrach/8132734/webrev.04/index.html>   that addresses the above issue.
>>>>
>