Hi Andrej, thanks for your reply!
> On 2 Sep 2015, at 21:17, Andrej Golovnin wrote:
>
> Just because you don’t see usages for it, it does not mean that others don’t
> need
> it.
I couldn't agree more. That's the main reasons we have this review. To tease out
things we've completely forgotten,
On 02/09/15 21:17, Andrej Golovnin wrote:
Hi Pavel,
- Where's the .ping() or .pong() ?
* @apiNote Keep-alive features of WebSocket protocol are taken care of
* completely by implementations and are not exposed in this API.
We thought that a high-level API could live without this burden for th
Hi Roger, thanks for looking at this!
> On 1 Sep 2015, at 17:05, Roger Riggs wrote:
>
> - The Incoming class combines separate functions that would be easier to
> use if the methods were directly on the Builder.
...
> |WebSocket ws = WebSocket.newBuilder("ws://websocket.example.com")
> .onRec
Hi Pavel,
>> - Where's the .ping() or .pong() ?
>
> * @apiNote Keep-alive features of WebSocket protocol are taken care of
> * completely by implementations and are not exposed in this API.
>
> We thought that a high-level API could live without this burden for the user.
> At
> the same time th
This looks good.
In general, it might be more appropriate to review this on
net-dev@openjdk.java.net alias.
Sincerely yours,
Ivan
On 02.09.2015 16:22, Vyom Tewari wrote:
Hi everyone,
Can you please review my changes for below bug.
Bug:
JDK-8080486 : JNI exception pending in
jdk/src/
