The changes look fine to me too.
-Chris.
On 04/09/15 16:04, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Hi Vyom,
I'm not a net/JNI expert but what you are proposing
looks good to me too. Ivan has already given his assent.
Unless I hear objections - or comments from other reviewers,
I will sponsor this change and pus
On 04/09/2015 16:04, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Hi Vyom,
I'm not a net/JNI expert but what you are proposing
looks good to me too. Ivan has already given his assent.
Unless I hear objections - or comments from other reviewers,
I will sponsor this change and push it for you (I'll wait
for Monday).
I
Hi Vyom,
I'm not a net/JNI expert but what you are proposing
looks good to me too. Ivan has already given his assent.
Unless I hear objections - or comments from other reviewers,
I will sponsor this change and push it for you (I'll wait
for Monday).
best regards,
-- daniel
On 02/09/15 15:55,
Peter,
I just tried disabling caching via call to
urlConnection.setUseCaches(false) prior to my call to getJarFile() in my
test code and that does prevent the resource leak in test scenario. So that
is one possible workaround when I am anticipating that the file will not
exist in the jar file.
Al
Hi Chris,
>>> Will adding the ability to send ping(ByteBuffer) be sufficient for your
>>> usage? If so, then I think we should add it, but not pong. The
>>> implementation will automatically send a pong message in response to
>>> receiving a ping. OK?
>>
>> Yes, ping(ByteBuffer) is sufficient
Hi Pavel,
>> - WebSocket.onClose() should contain the close reason code.
>
> What is it useful for? Is it ok to provide it as a part of description?
>
> String description = char code + ": " + String reason
>
Please don't do that! We definitely don't want to parse it. What we
need is a m
