You asked me if there's any advantages of JAR over ZIP, and I answered truthfully.
Since Jar was mentioned before and partially dismissed, I just wanted to make it perfectly clear that the difference between zip and jar was almost negligible before someone made a fool of themselves an burst in here with a "zomg, how to open jar on windows? Use zip plz".
That said, jar is mostly intended to make use of the manifest file, and thus its primary purposes are signing files and release distribution. As you've pointed out, for simple project files, which is basically just a collection, and not a runnable, unless signing is desired, zip is just as good as jar, with a very minor edge being that it's more recognizable and does not imply release distribution.
As for how signing files would be achieved from the Java api, I'd have to look into it, since it's not immediately apparent in the JAR api (would probably be a 2-step process: Use another API to sign, and then use the Jar API to stick the signature in the manifest).
Since Jar was mentioned before and partially dismissed, I just wanted to make it perfectly clear that the difference between zip and jar was almost negligible before someone made a fool of themselves an burst in here with a "zomg, how to open jar on windows? Use zip plz".
That said, jar is mostly intended to make use of the manifest file, and thus its primary purposes are signing files and release distribution. As you've pointed out, for simple project files, which is basically just a collection, and not a runnable, unless signing is desired, zip is just as good as jar, with a very minor edge being that it's more recognizable and does not imply release distribution.
As for how signing files would be achieved from the Java api, I'd have to look into it, since it's not immediately apparent in the JAR api (would probably be a 2-step process: Use another API to sign, and then use the Jar API to stick the signature in the manifest).