On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 11:44:43 GMT, Jaikiran Pai <j...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Daniel Fuchs has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains three additional
>> commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - add bug id to test
>> - Merge branch 'master' into MalformedResponse-8303965
>> - 8303965
>
> src/java.net.http/share/classes/jdk/internal/net/http/Http2Connection.java
> line 1220:
>
>> 1218: */
>> 1219: @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
>> 1220: <T> Stream<T> getInitialStream() {
>
> Given that this method returns and also updates the initial stream member
> field, the naming of this method is a bit odd. But I can't think of a better
> name, plus this is internal to the `jdk.internal.net.http` package and also
> has a comment which explains what it does, so I think this name is fine.
Maybe I could change the name to "retrieveInitialStream()"... Would that be
better?
> src/java.net.http/share/classes/jdk/internal/net/http/Stream.java line 1603:
>
>> 1601: }
>> 1602: } catch (UncheckedIOException uio) {
>> 1603: // reset stream: From RFC 7540, section-8.1.2.6
>
> Hello Daniel, should we instead refer to RFC-9113 (section 8.1.1) which
> obsoletes RFC-7540? In the context of this PR, the newer RFC continues to
> have the same expectations as that in RFC-7540.
Right. Sorry for the oversight.
> src/java.net.http/share/classes/jdk/internal/net/http/common/ValidatingHeadersConsumer.java
> line 32:
>
>> 30:
>> 31: /*
>> 32: * Checks RFC 7540 rules (relaxed) compliance regarding pseudo-headers.
>
> Same here, should we use new RFC number?
Done
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/12976
