Re: java.util.zip

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi,

On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 03:36:00PM +0100, Jochen Hoenicke wrote:
> On Nov 16, John Leuner wrote:
> > 
> > I should have made it more clear that this is a port to pure java code. My
> > hidden agenda here is to use the code in a future java OS (see
> > http://jos.org), which is why I didn't want to use zlib.
Nice. But doesn't JOS support JNI? How are other non-pure-java libraries
suported? You could even consider implementing CNI support for JOS if
you are concerned about the speed barrier of JNI.

> IIRC, everything except Deflater and Inflater are already pure java in
> libgcj.  Deflater and Inflater are just interfaces to zlib, so it
> makes sense for you to rewrite them from scratch.  You should borrow
> some code from zlib, of course.  And make sure you have RFC 1950-1952
> handy.

I think having a pure java.util.zip is very sexy but keep in mind that
the zlib library has been very well tested and by porting it to java
you could introduce subtle bugs. So maybe only writing the JNI/CNI
wrapper isn't such a bad choice.

> > I will have a look at the libgcj code and Jochen's code, to see what I can
> > borrow / contribute in terms of code and javadoc.
> 
> You can probably take all other classes in java.zip from libgcj
> without changes.  Regarding javadoc I think there is very little in
> libgcj.

I just comitted my Javadoc additions to the libgcj zip code and
Tom Tromey just comitted a couple of small code aditions so make
sure you get the very latest version from CVS.

Cheers,

Mark