8157045 [1] is blocking folks doing test development for WebSockets. I would
like to push this “temporary” change, to unblock them, until we can refactor
some
of this area to fix what appears to be a more significant issue (
readImpl(ByteBuffer)
can read bytes into a different ByteBuffer, but has
> On 14 Jun 2016, at 17:24, Simone Bordet wrote:
>
>> ...
>
> However, you still want to use the CFs for exception reporting.
Of course. We should not introduce a model that is at odds with how exceptions
are handled in this API. How about:
1) Leave the sendXXX methods as they are, no change
Looks good!
> On 15 Jun 2016, at 13:50, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>
> 8157045 [1] is blocking folks doing test development for WebSockets. I would
> like to push this “temporary” change, to unblock them, until we can refactor
> some
> of this area to fix what appears to be a more significant issue (
Chris
That's unfortunate as that API is only used by websocket.
Otherwise the problem would have been seen before now.
This temporary change looks fine and I will look into the broader problem
Michael.
On 15/06/2016, 13:50, Chris Hegarty wrote:
8157045 [1] is blocking folks doing test developm
