RFR [11u backport]: 8034802: (zipfs) newFileSystem throws UOE when the zip file is located in a custom file system

[Langer, Christoph]

Hi Goetz,

> 
> And I see much more differences if I compare the diffs.
> 
> Please explain.
>

unfortunately, the udiffs of the webrev look different in quite some parts to what you see when you look at the commit on the hg web server (http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/rev/ba51515b64e5), although those are the same. There were only 3 rejects when I applied the change to jdk11u (you could try this yourself).

> This is a big change, and it seems a lot more changed than resolving
> Hunks.  Some hunks are missing altogether.
> 
> For example,
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/rev/ba51515b64e5,
> ZipFileSystem 2341
> 2.341-            IndexNode inode = new IndexNode(cen, nlen, pos);
> 2.342+            IndexNode inode = new IndexNode(cen, pos, nlen);
> Is missing in your change.

The constructor IndexNode(byte[] cen, int noff, int nlen, int pos) (jdk11u) vs. IndexNode(byte[] cen, int pos, int nlen) (jdk11) was actually the part where the failing hunks originated. There was another patch pre 8034802 in jdk12 which changed signature:
IndexNode(byte[] cen, int noff, int nlen, int pos) -to IndexNode(byte[] cen, int nlen, int pos).
8034802 did this change then:
IndexNode(byte[] cen, int nlen, int pos) -> IndexNode(byte[] cen, int pos, int nlen)

I chose not to touch this part but maybe this change should change the constructor from IndexNode(byte[] cen, int noff, int nlen, int pos) -> IndexNode(byte[] cen, int noff, int pos, int nlen), though, to take over this change of order in arguments. It's a package private constructor that is only called in one spot. What do you think?

Thanks & Best regards
Christoph