On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 13:42:40 GMT, Volkan Yazici <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Fixes endian handling `jdk.internal.net.http.websocket.Frame.Masker`.
>>
>> ### Implementation notes
>>
>> I deleted the `Frame` clone in tests, and rewired the test code depending on
>> it to the actual `Frame`. To enable this, I relaxed the visibility of the
>> actual `Frame`. I guess the `Frame` clone was introduced to have strict
>> visibility in the actual `Frame`. Though this is not needed since the actual
>> `Frame` is in an internal package. Plus, the fact that bug is in the `Frame`
>> class hints in the direction that there should be one `Frame`.
>
> Volkan Yazici has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> Fix copyright years
src/java.net.http/share/classes/jdk/internal/net/http/websocket/Frame.java line
105:
> 103: * The source and the destination buffers may be the same
> instance.
> 104: */
> 105: static void mask(ByteBuffer src, ByteBuffer dst, int mask) {
Ok - I'm going to start painting the bikeshed here. Though I like the name
`mask`, the fact that there was a method called `mask` before that did
something completely different makes me pause. Maybe we should not reuse the
name `mask` here, and either keep `transferMasking` or use a new name like
`applyMask`. One of my concern is backporting, where `mask` means something
else in previous releases. We'd have to remember that in one release it means
something and in the next it means something different.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24033#discussion_r1994081856
