Re: JEP 321 surface-level comments

On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 12:35 PM Chris Povirk wrote: Commenting inline on just a couple of points. > >- I second the idea of making HttpHeaders a final class, as proposed >as part of JDK-8184274 >. While "final >

Re: HTTP client API

Hi Michael - Some follow-up/updates on items from my previous email inline below: On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Tobias Thierer <tobi...@google.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Michael McMahon < > michael.x.mcma...@oracle.com> wrote: > >>

Re: HTTP client API

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Tobias Thierer <tobi...@google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Michael McMahon < > michael.x.mcma...@oracle.com> wrote: >> >> 2.) HttpHeaders: I love that there is a type for this abstraction! But: >> >>

Re: HTTP client API

Hi Michael - thanks a lot for your response! Further comments below. How would you rank simplicity, versatility and performance as goals for the HTTP Client API? For example the blocking vs. non-blocking API choices will largely depend on trade-offs, so I'd like to understand the target