Re: java.util.zip

[John Leuner]

> > > 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.

We have JNI support in one of the current alpha implementations, but again
it's a political / philosophical issue, not one of practicality.

I assume CNI requires C++ support?
 
> > 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.

There is always that risk. I can test against the JNI implementation and
other established utilities anyway, so there isn't such a great risk. 

> > > 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.

I'll do that. 
Thanks.

John Leuner