I think this is fine Rob.
-Chris.
On 29 Mar 2016, at 15:38, Rob McKenna wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Looking for a review for this change.
>
> Basically https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135305 abandoned the old
> TCP echo isReachable check in favour of Windows' ICMP calls on supported
>
Hi Simone,
> On 5 Apr 2016, at 21:16, Simone Bordet wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Sure, the caller must not block.
> But there is no need to dispatch to achieve that when all code is
> non-blocking already.
Sorry, could you please explain this to me in more detail? I'm not sure I'm
following.
Let's sup
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 9:37 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> I need to get back into the code, but are you counting the calling thread,
> the one invoking sendXXX(), as dispatch 1?
No, that's why I am proposing *zero* dispatches.
> We always need this to
> allow the caller NOT block right.
Sure,
Simone,
On 5 Apr 2016, at 20:25, Simone Bordet wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Chris Hegarty
> wrote:
On 3 Apr 2016, at 18:43, Simone Bordet wrote:
Threading.
---
WebSocket.sendXXX() calls
MessagePublisher.send(), which dispatches a to
MessagePu
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>>> On 3 Apr 2016, at 18:43, Simone Bordet wrote:
>>> Threading.
>>> ---
>>> WebSocket.sendXXX() calls
>>> MessagePublisher.send(), which dispatches a to
>>> MessagePublisher.react(), which calls
>>> MessageSender.onNext(), which dispatche
Hi Roger, thanks for looking into this.
> On 5 Apr 2016, at 17:37, Roger Riggs wrote:
>
> It would be helpful if the classnames/filenames reflected the participation
> in the WebSocket implementation
> to keep them distinct from the HTTP 2.0 implementation in the same directory.
> For example,
Hi Pavel,
Initial comments, bottom up.
It would be helpful if the classnames/filenames reflected the
participation in the WebSocket implementation
to keep them distinct from the HTTP 2.0 implementation in the same
directory.
For example, Writer, Reader, etc. perhaps a 'Ws' prefix would be
su
