Re: RFR JDK-8087113: Websocket API and implementation

2016-04-04 Thread Pavel Rappo
Hi Anthony, thanks a lot for looking into this! > On 3 Apr 2016, at 17:45, Anthony Vanelverdinghe > wrote: > > Here are my suggestions concerning the public types: > > java.net.http.WebSocket > - order the arguments of > static Builder newBuilder(URI uri, HttpClient client, Listener listener)

Re: RFR JDK-8087113: Websocket API and implementation

2016-04-04 Thread Pavel Rappo
Hi Simone, thanks for deep dive into this! > On 3 Apr 2016, at 18:43, Simone Bordet wrote: > > Throwing exceptions. > --- > Given that the API is making use of CompletableFuture, throwing > exceptions instead is in my experience not the right thing to do. > You want to communicate failure via t

Re: RFR JDK-8087113: Websocket API and implementation

2016-04-04 Thread Chris Hegarty
I'm still working my way through the code, but ... On 04/04/16 15:02, Pavel Rappo wrote: Hi Simone, thanks for deep dive into this! On 3 Apr 2016, at 18:43, Simone Bordet wrote: Throwing exceptions. --- Given that the API is making use of CompletableFuture, throwing exceptions instead is in

Re: RFR JDK-8087113: Websocket API and implementation

2016-04-04 Thread Simone Bordet
Hi, On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Pavel Rappo wrote: > I see your point. Yes, working asynchronously kind of suggests that we should > relay all exceptions through the asynchronous interface (CF in this particular > case), simply because otherwise we would have to handle exceptions in many > pl

Re: RFR JDK-8087113: Websocket API and implementation

2016-04-04 Thread Anthony Vanelverdinghe
Hi Pavel Thanks for your considerate response, replies are inline. On 4/04/2016 13:08, Pavel Rappo wrote: Hi Anthony, thanks a lot for looking into this! On 3 Apr 2016, at 17:45, Anthony Vanelverdinghe wrote: Here are my suggestions concerning the public types: java.net.http.WebSocket - o

Re: RFR JDK-8087113: Websocket API and implementation

2016-04-04 Thread Chris Hegarty
On 4 Apr 2016, at 17:00, Simone Bordet wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Pavel Rappo wrote: >> I see your point. Yes, working asynchronously kind of suggests that we should >> relay all exceptions through the asynchronous interface (CF in this >> particular >> case), simply bec

Re: RFR JDK-8087113: Websocket API and implementation

2016-04-04 Thread Simone Bordet
Hi, On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 8:45 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote: > Isn’t this the same as the new HTTP Client in java.net.http, e.g. > HttpRequest::responseAsync ? Do you think that this should be > changed also? I have not looked at the new HTTP client yet, but I will. In my experience, having one si