On 28/04/17 11:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
...
Ok, how about enable/disable Callback?
I’m less sure what, if anything, AsyncConnection.unblock could be renamed
to, since it has no knowledge of blocking or callbacks in the first
place.
It would have to be enableCallback() from above. AsyncConne
Hi Chris.
On 27/04/2017, 18:56, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 27 Apr 2017, at 16:41, Michael McMahon wrote:
...
4) AsyncConnection / Queue
I find the term ‘block’ confusing here. It seems that the input channel,
in the AsyncSSLDelegate implicitly puts itself into “blocking” mode
when perf
> On 27 Apr 2017, at 16:41, Michael McMahon
> wrote:
>
> ...
>> 4) AsyncConnection / Queue
>>
>> I find the term ‘block’ confusing here. It seems that the input channel,
>> in the AsyncSSLDelegate implicitly puts itself into “blocking” mode
>> when performing the initial handshake. The u
Hi Chris,
Comments below
On 27/04/2017, 14:32, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 27 Apr 2017, at 10:18, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Hi Michael,
On 26/04/2017 16:22, Michael McMahon wrote:
Hi,
This webrev has been updated with a number of additional changes since
the first review.
The latest webrev is at:
h
> On 27 Apr 2017, at 10:18, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> On 26/04/2017 16:22, Michael McMahon wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This webrev has been updated with a number of additional changes since
>> the first review.
>>
>> The latest webrev is at:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/81758
Hi Michael,
On 26/04/2017 16:22, Michael McMahon wrote:
Hi,
This webrev has been updated with a number of additional changes since
the first review.
The latest webrev is at:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/8175814/webrev.3/index.html
The updates look good to me. Might be good to have an
Hi,
This webrev has been updated with a number of additional changes since
the first review.
The latest webrev is at:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/8175814/webrev.3/index.html
Thanks
Michael
On 06/03/2017, 11:29, Michael McMahon wrote:
On 06/03/2017, 11:12, Chris Hegarty wrote:
O
On 06/03/2017, 11:12, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 06/03/17 11:00, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
On 01/03/17 15:40, Michael McMahon wrote:
Hi
Could I get the following JDK 9 change reviewed, please?
In addition to fixing the spec problem around HTTP version,
it fixes an implementation issue with version al
On 06/03/17 11:00, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
On 01/03/17 15:40, Michael McMahon wrote:
Hi
Could I get the following JDK 9 change reviewed, please?
In addition to fixing the spec problem around HTTP version,
it fixes an implementation issue with version also, where the per-request
version (if set) was
On 01/03/17 15:40, Michael McMahon wrote:
Hi
Could I get the following JDK 9 change reviewed, please?
In addition to fixing the spec problem around HTTP version,
it fixes an implementation issue with version also, where the per-request
version (if set) was not being picked up.
http://cr.openjdk
Hi
Could I get the following JDK 9 change reviewed, please?
In addition to fixing the spec problem around HTTP version,
it fixes an implementation issue with version also, where the per-request
version (if set) was not being picked up.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/8175814/webrev.1/index.
11 matches
Mail list logo
