[User feedback required] subfolders not created for nested archives

[sumyungguy]

If an archive contains other archives, subfolders won't be created for them during auto extraction, even if the "Create Subfolder" box is checked.

I found that by changing the "subfolder pattern" to %ARCHIVENAME%, it works as I expected. Is there any drawback to doing that? Shouldn't that be the default?

[pspzockerscene]

Well for me, this seems to work fine if you mean the predefined Packagizer setting "Create subfolder by Packagename".

GreeZ psp

[sumyungguy]

I mean in Settings-->Archive Extractor-->Extract destination folder, there's a checkbox for "Create subfolder", with the default "Only if the archive root contains at least [2] files or folders", and the "subfolder pattern" defaults to %PACKAGENAME%.

I guess it's for when someone has made an archive directly from a bunch of files, instead of an archive of a folder containing the files?

Without that setting, JD will sometimes extract all the files to the root level of the download folder, rather than into a new folder inside the download folder. If I check the box, then it works (creates a subfolder) for the main archive. But even with it checked, if there are more archives inside the main archive, subfolders don't get created for them, and everything gets extracted to the root level of the main archive's subfolder. It's especially a problem when the nested archives contain files named the same as the main archive, like "readme.txt" and so on, and it makes a mess...

I think it's related to this:
http://board.jdownloader.org/showthread.php?t=56787
...but in my case it's when doing an auto extraction, and there are more archives inside the archive. I guess %PACKAGENAME% isn't defined for the nested archives - and it wouldn't make sense anyway. Using %ARCHIVENAME% as the subfolder pattern seems to work ok, and gives me the behaviour I'd expect from other unarchivers.

So basically, that solves the problem for me. Just wondering if it might break something else I'm not aware of, and also whether that should maybe be the default configuration instead of %PACKAGENAME%?