On 02/12/2014 09:26, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > 2014-12-02 10:04 GMT+01:00 Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>: > >> Possible options: >> a) Require servers to support a NO-OP extension. Kind of pointless since >> it would just be there to pass the tests. >> b) Drop the test. Not ideal. If the API is there it should be tested. >> c) Add a "ignore unknown extensions flag" we use just for running the >> tests. >> d) Require compression support and then use that to test the API. >> e) Add support for application provided extensions and then use that to >> test the API. >> >> c) for now followed by e) is probably the best solution with c) being >> removed once e) was in place. >> > > What is the best option for the websockets implementation configuration > options ?
It is more like "least worst" rather than "best". Most things have sensible defaults and the user is able to change them via properties set on ClientEndpointConfig.getUserProperties() or similar. For changing defaults I don't think there is much choice but to use system properties. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
