On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 18:58:15 GMT, Mark Sheppard <mshep...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> src/java.net.http/share/classes/jdk/internal/net/http/websocket/Frame.java
>> line 105:
>>
>>> 103: * The source and the destination buffers may be the same
>>> instance.
>>> 104: */
>>> 105: static void mask(ByteBuffer src, ByteBuffer dst, int mask) {
>>
>> Ok - I'm going to start painting the bikeshed here. Though I like the name
>> `mask`, the fact that there was a method called `mask` before that did
>> something completely different makes me pause. Maybe we should not reuse the
>> name `mask` here, and either keep `transferMasking` or use a new name like
>> `applyMask`. One of my concern is backporting, where `mask` means something
>> else in previous releases. We'd have to remember that in one release it
>> means something and in the next it means something different.
>
> Here's an undercoat: what does the method so as per its Java doc - its
> copies data from one buffer to another applying a mask. Thus copyWithMask,
> or transferWithMask
> use a new name like `applyMask` ... One of my concern is backporting
@dfuch, right. Introduced more backport-friendly naming changes in
a7d336056c2816991568bb2d69ccd033dd441b31:
- `transferMasking` to `applyMask`
- `initGallopingMasking` to `initGallopingMask`
- `doGallopingMasking` to `applyGallopingMask`
- `doPlainMasking` to `applyPlainMask`
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24033#discussion_r1995286535
