On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 17:45:25 GMT, Patrick Concannon
wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Could someone please review our code for JDK-8252304: 'Seed an
>> HttpRequest.Builder from an existing HttpRequest'?
>>
>> This RFR proposes a new factory method for creating a new `HttpRequest`
>> builder from an existi
On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 17:45:25 GMT, Patrick Concannon
wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Could someone please review our code for JDK-8252304: 'Seed an
>> HttpRequest.Builder from an existing HttpRequest'?
>>
>> This RFR proposes a new factory method for creating a new `HttpRequest`
>> builder from an existi
> Hi,
>
> Could someone please review our code for JDK-8252304: 'Seed an
> HttpRequest.Builder from an existing HttpRequest'?
>
> This RFR proposes a new factory method for creating a new `HttpRequest`
> builder from an existing `HttpRequest`.
> This method can be used to build a new request eq
On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 12:23:15 GMT, Patrick Concannon
wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Could someone please review our code for JDK-8252304: 'Seed an
>> HttpRequest.Builder from an existing HttpRequest'?
>>
>> This RFR proposes a new factory method for creating a new `HttpRequest`
>> builder from an existi
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 16:50:46 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Would it be enough to check in each test case that if we are examining a
>> request with headers, it contains at least one called `testName1`? i.e.
>> if(!request.headers().map().isEmpty())
>> assertTrue(request.headers
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 18:28:46 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Ah! Good catch - I believe the code is buggy. It should have been
>> `!name.equalsIgnoreCase(...)`.
>
> Patrick - can you add a test case with exactly **that** use case? I know you
> have similar tests which remove `"testName1"`, but it w
On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 17:23:42 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Patrick Concannon has updated the pull request with a new target base due to
>> a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 15 additional
>> comm
> Hi,
>
> Could someone please review our code for JDK-8252304: 'Seed an
> HttpRequest.Builder from an existing HttpRequest'?
>
> This RFR proposes a new factory method for creating a new `HttpRequest`
> builder from an existing `HttpRequest`.
> This method can be used to build a new request eq
> Hi,
>
> Could someone please review our code for JDK-8252304: 'Seed an
> HttpRequest.Builder from an existing HttpRequest'?
>
> This RFR proposes a new factory method for creating a new `HttpRequest`
> builder from an existing `HttpRequest`.
> This method can be used to build a new request eq
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 17:28:45 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> src/java.net.http/share/classes/java/net/http/HttpRequest.java line 335:
>>
>>> 333: * Remove a particular header (e.g. Foo-Bar):
>>> 334: * {@code HttpRequest.newBuilder(request, (name, value) ->
>>> name.equalsIgnoreCase("F
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 17:16:48 GMT, Michael McMahon wrote:
>> Patrick Concannon has updated the pull request with a new target base due to
>> a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 15 additional
>> c
On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 15:54:18 GMT, Patrick Concannon
wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Could someone please review our code for JDK-8252304: 'Seed an
>> HttpRequest.Builder from an existing HttpRequest'?
>>
>> This RFR proposes a new factory method for creating a new `HttpRequest`
>> builder from an existi
On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 15:54:18 GMT, Patrick Concannon
wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Could someone please review our code for JDK-8252304: 'Seed an
>> HttpRequest.Builder from an existing HttpRequest'?
>>
>> This RFR proposes a new factory method for creating a new `HttpRequest`
>> builder from an existi
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 16:16:53 GMT, Patrick Concannon
wrote:
>> test/jdk/java/net/httpclient/HttpRequestNewBuilderTest.java line 320:
>>
>>> 318: @Test(dataProvider = "testRequests")
>>> 319: public void testRemoveHeader(HttpRequest request) {
>>> 320: BiPredicate filter = (n, v)
On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 17:29:20 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Patrick Concannon has updated the pull request with a new target base due to
>> a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 15 additional
>> comm
On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 15:54:18 GMT, Patrick Concannon
wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Could someone please review our code for JDK-8252304: 'Seed an
>> HttpRequest.Builder from an existing HttpRequest'?
>>
>> This RFR proposes a new factory method for creating a new `HttpRequest`
>> builder from an existi
On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 17:16:21 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> test/jdk/java/net/httpclient/HttpRequestNewBuilderTest.java line 171:
>>
>>> 169: while (iter1.hasNext() && iter2.hasNext())
>>> 170: assertEquals(iter1.next(), iter2.next());
>>> 171: }
>>
>> This code doesn't see
> Hi,
>
> Could someone please review our code for JDK-8252304: 'Seed an
> HttpRequest.Builder from an existing HttpRequest'?
>
> This RFR proposes a new factory method for creating a new `HttpRequest`
> builder from an existing `HttpRequest`.
> This method can be used to build a new request eq
> Hi,
>
> Could someone please review our code for JDK-8252304: 'Seed an
> HttpRequest.Builder from an existing HttpRequest'?
>
> This RFR proposes a new factory method for creating a new `HttpRequest`
> builder from an existing `HttpRequest`.
> This method can be used to build a new request eq
On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 16:45:31 GMT, Patrick Concannon
wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Could someone please review our code for JDK-8252304: 'Seed an
>> HttpRequest.Builder from an existing HttpRequest'?
>>
>> This RFR proposes a new factory method for creating a new `HttpRequest`
>> builder from an existi
On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 17:21:02 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Patrick Concannon has updated the pull request with a new target base due to
>> a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 12 additional
>> comm
> Hi,
>
> Could someone please review our code for JDK-8252304: 'Seed an
> HttpRequest.Builder from an existing HttpRequest'?
>
> This RFR proposes a new factory method for creating a new `HttpRequest`
> builder from an existing `HttpRequest`.
> This method can be used to build a new request eq
> Hi,
>
> Could someone please review our code for JDK-8252304: 'Seed an
> HttpRequest.Builder from an existing HttpRequest'?
>
> This RFR proposes a new factory method for creating a new `HttpRequest`
> builder from an existing `HttpRequest`.
> This method can be used to build a new request eq
On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 18:38:33 GMT, Mark Sheppard wrote:
>> I wonder if the spec should be a little more specific than just "seeded"
>> which I think is fine for the first sentence. But maybe say something like
>> "fields are copied from the given HttpRequest" in the description.
>
> a couple of p
Hi Mark,
On 09/11/2020 18:40, Mark Sheppard wrote:
a couple of points:
Should the spec state explicitly that an NPE is thrown if the supplied
HttpRequest reference is null?
https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/15/docs/api/java.net.http/java/net/http/package-summary.html
"Unless otherwise s
On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 10:28:08 GMT, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>> /csr
>>
>> Link to CSR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8255993
>
> I wonder if the spec should be a little more specific than just "seeded"
> which I think is fine for the first sentence. But maybe say something like
> "fiel
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 18:09:01 GMT, Patrick Concannon
wrote:
>> Marked as reviewed by chegar (Reviewer).
>
>> /csr
>
> Link to CSR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8255993
I wonder if the spec should be a little more specific than just "seeded" which
I think is fine for the first senten
> Hi,
>
> Could someone please review our code for JDK-8252304: 'Seed an
> HttpRequest.Builder from an existing HttpRequest'?
>
> This RFR proposes a new factory method for creating a new `HttpRequest`
> builder from an existing `HttpRequest`.
> This method can be used to build a new request eq
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 17:17:14 GMT, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>> Patrick Concannon has updated the pull request with a new target base due to
>> a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains six additional
>> com
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 16:23:13 GMT, Patrick Concannon
wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Could someone please review our code for JDK-8252304: 'Seed an
>> HttpRequest.Builder from an existing HttpRequest'?
>>
>> This RFR proposes a new factory method for creating a new `HttpRequest`
>> builder from an existin
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 16:23:13 GMT, Patrick Concannon
wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Could someone please review our code for JDK-8252304: 'Seed an
>> HttpRequest.Builder from an existing HttpRequest'?
>>
>> This RFR proposes a new factory method for creating a new `HttpRequest`
>> builder from an existin
On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 15:11:50 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Patrick Concannon has updated the pull request with a new target base due to
>> a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains six additional
>> comm
> Hi,
>
> Could someone please review our code for JDK-8252304: 'Seed an
> HttpRequest.Builder from an existing HttpRequest'?
>
> This RFR proposes a new factory method for creating a new `HttpRequest`
> builder from an existing `HttpRequest`.
> This method can be used to build a new request eq
On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 15:04:35 GMT, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>> Patrick Concannon has updated the pull request with a new target base due to
>> a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains six additional
>> com
On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 15:42:54 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> src/java.net.http/share/classes/java/net/http/HttpRequest.java line 344:
>>
>>> 342: throw ex;
>>> 343: } catch (RuntimeException r) {
>>> 344: throw new IllegalArgumentException("Illegal request
>>> paramet
> Hi,
>
> Could someone please review our code for JDK-8252304: 'Seed an
> HttpRequest.Builder from an existing HttpRequest'?
>
> This RFR proposes a new factory method for creating a new `HttpRequest`
> builder from an existing `HttpRequest`.
> This method can be used to build a new request eq
On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 15:18:01 GMT, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Could someone please review our code for JDK-8252304: 'Seed an
>> HttpRequest.Builder from an existing HttpRequest'?
>>
>> This RFR proposes a new factory method for creating a new `HttpRequest`
>> builder from an existing `Ht
On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 14:51:07 GMT, Patrick Concannon
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could someone please review our code for JDK-8252304: 'Seed an
> HttpRequest.Builder from an existing HttpRequest'?
>
> This RFR proposes a new factory method for creating a new `HttpRequest`
> builder from an existing `Http
On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 14:51:07 GMT, Patrick Concannon
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could someone please review our code for JDK-8252304: 'Seed an
> HttpRequest.Builder from an existing HttpRequest'?
>
> This RFR proposes a new factory method for creating a new `HttpRequest`
> builder from an existing `Http
Hi,
Could someone please review our code for JDK-8252304: 'Seed an
HttpRequest.Builder from an existing HttpRequest'?
This RFR proposes a new factory method for creating a new `HttpRequest` builder
from an existing `HttpRequest`.
This method can be used to build a new request equivalent to the
40 matches
Mail list logo
