Thank you Chris for review and proofreading! :-)
Sincerely yours,
Ivan
On 21.10.2015 15:21, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Looks fine Ivan,
Just a typo on:
48 Utils.adjustTimeout(CHILDREN_COUNT * CHILD_TIMEOT * 2);
-Chris.
On 21/10/15 11:06, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Hello!
A few failures of the
On 10/20/2015 12:49 PM, Simone Bordet wrote:
>CharBuffer message = ... get buffer from pool or create new one ...
>
>... fill message with data ...
>
>CompletionStage cs = listener.onText(..., message, ...);
>
>if (cs != null) {
> cs.thenAccept(cb -> {
> if (cb != null) {
>
Looks fine Ivan,
Just a typo on:
48 Utils.adjustTimeout(CHILDREN_COUNT * CHILD_TIMEOT * 2);
-Chris.
On 21/10/15 11:06, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Hello!
A few failures of the recently added regtest were observed.
The failures seem to be due to slow machines.
The suggested fix is to
1) incr
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Pavel Rappo wrote:
> Well, maybe, I don't know. But implementing interfaces A and B with the same
> class C doesn't magically bring B's methods into A, does it?
It does if they were not magically split without reason.
My point is that you proposed a while ba
> On 21 Oct 2015, at 12:18, Simone Bordet wrote:
>
> Speaking of analogies, it's pretty common to implement Publisher *and*
> Subscription in the same class when you can only have one listener,
> which is exactly the WebSocket case.
Well, maybe, I don't know. But implementing interfaces A and B
> On 21 Oct 2015, at 12:18, Simone Bordet wrote:
>
> I really hope you meant that Listener is like Flow.Subscriber.
It's obviously a typo. Thanks!
Listener ~ Subscriber
WebSocket ~ Publisher
FlowController ~ Subscription
> On 20 Oct 2015, at 14:32, Simone Bordet wrote:
>
> So why choosing CharBuffer ?
Because in general when an API provides a callback method `c`
c( x)
an application has to implement, it should better be the case that the
is the most specific type possible (with possibly more methods
and
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Pavel Rappo wrote:
>>> But I'm against of merging flowController with WebSocket.
>>
>> Yet, you did not bring any technical reasons for the split, and
>> "separation of concerns" is just not enough because it can mean
>> anything (and it may even be wrong).
>
> On 19 Oct 2015, at 22:37, Simone Bordet wrote:
>
> Now I am confused :)
>
> Are you saying that if you do:
>
> builder.headers("foo", "bar", "baz").headers("one", "two", "three")
>
> then "foo", "bar" and "baz" are removed ?
In the current version it is exactly like you've said. And we're
On 10/20/2015 12:49 PM, Simone Bordet wrote:
if (cs != null) {
cs.thenAccept(cb -> {
if (cb != null) {
return*message* to buffer pool ...
}
});
}
At that point, the return value of onText() could well be a CF like
it already is, no ?
The implement
Hello!
A few failures of the recently added regtest were observed.
The failures seem to be due to slow machines.
The suggested fix is to
1) increase the timeout,
2) take into account the timeout factor from the jtreg's settings,
3) measure the time of individual cycle of the loop, and give up, i
Hi,
I think this is a reasonable observation. We actually changed
ProxySelector itself to provide (one) simple factory method for
a fixed Proxy using an InetSocketAddress for all requests and that
makes setting a simple proxy very easy.
But, I agree it probably makes more sense for the default b
12 matches
Mail list logo
