On 23 Jun 2016, at 16:09, Simone Bordet <simone.bor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Chris Hegarty <chris.hega...@oracle.com> > wrote: >> What Pavel is trying to do with onClose is to adhere to the >> spirit of the RFC, rather than supporting open-ended half-close semantics. > > Not sure there is a spirit to RFCs, just interpretations. > I doubt the "spirit" of the RFC was to deny completely the send of > messages in half closed state. > If it was so, it would have probably been stated so clearly. > Web*Socket* was born as a thin layer on top of sockets, so TCP, that > is why I keep referring to that. > > I'm fine that mine interpretation is different from Pavel's, we're > just discussing different interpretations here and try to come out > with a good/common one.
After some further research it seems like this is a debatable point. Keeping the Design Philosophy ( not spirit ) in mind, and erring on the side of caution, it may be best to NOT impose a, possibly artificial, restriction on the Java API. So, in summary, I agree with your proposal around the handling of OnClose, we should support half-close semantics. -Chris.
