Re: Javadoc change in HttpExchange makes external implementations non-complaint

[Robert Engels]

Hi, I read the bug report. I don’t think this is sufficient. This is a specification so in order to have compliant behavior no matter the implementation there cannot be a different set of rules for the reference implementation vs others.  So the api should be clarified in a non ambiguous manner and then one or more implementations can be classified as non compliant.  Robert On Dec 5, 2024, at 6:31 AM, Jaikiran Pai <jai.forums2...@gmail.com> wrote:  Hello Ethan, Thank you for noticing this and bringing this up here. I've raised https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8345577 and we will address this shortly. -Jaikiran On 05/12/24 3:22 am, Ethan McCue wrote: Sorry Before:      * {@link Filter} modules may store arbitrary objects with {@code HttpExchange}      * instances as an out-of-band communication mechanism. Other filters      * or the exchange handler may then access these objects. Bungled the copy-paste On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 6:49 AM Ethan McCue <et...@mccue.dev> wrote: Hi all, This change (https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/40ae4699622cca72830acd146b7b5c4efd5a43ec) makes the Jetty implementation of the SPI be no longer fit the Javadoc. HttpContexts are not per-request while the previous Javadoc implied that the attribute mechanism on exchanges was. Before:      * Sets an attribute with the given {@code name} and {@code value} in this exchange's      * {@linkplain HttpContext#getAttributes() context attributes}.      * or the exchange handler may then access these objects. After:      * Sets an attribute with the given {@code name} and {@code value} in this exchange's      * {@linkplain HttpContext#getAttributes() context attributes}.      *      * @apiNote {@link Filter} modules may store arbitrary objects as attributes through      * {@code HttpExchange} instances as an out-of-band communication mechanism. Other filters      * or the exchange handler may then access these objects. The Jetty implementation, I think rightfully, assumed that this context was per-request and implemented it as so. https://github.com/jetty/jetty.project/blob/jetty-12.0.x/jetty-core/jetty-http-spi/src/main/java/org/eclipse/jetty/http/spi/JettyHttpExchangeDelegate.java#L223 As such, I don't think simply a javadoc change as a resolution to these issues is applicable https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8345233 https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8235786