> So, the first observation is that it really wouldn't be that heinous to
> use rfc1951, if we wanted to do that -- as long as we restricted CM to
> 8 (deflate). I still think we were correct in specifying rfc1950,
> however, so let's do some experiments...
We specified 1951, not 1950.
1951 is DEFLATE and 1950 is zlib.
> In the first case, the 'nowrap' argument to the Deflater is false (so
> the ZLIB header and footer are added). In the second case, the 'nowrap'
> argument is true, so we just get the deflated data. Note that I was
> deflating zero-length data in these tests, so all we are seeing are the
> headers etc.
Did you understand the thing in there about the dummy bit required with
nowrap? That's what had me worried. Otherwise it's just a simple case of the
class names being a bit off, since the javadocs do say that it's for zlib.
-- Scott
