On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 16:13:15 GMT, Michael McMahon <[email protected]> wrote:
> Would this text be normative - that it - would any implementation plugged > through the SPI need to support this? While some implementations do it that way I'm not completely sure it's right to make all of them try to implement Upgrade. > Maybe we could allow sendResponseHeaders to throw > UnsupportedOperationException if the function is not supported. Not totally sold on this > Actually that won't work. Let me think about it ... It really needs to be a > new method to allow for existing implementations that don't support it ... > Something like sendUpgradeResponse() with a default implementation that > throws UOE. A separate method to do essentially the same thing as sendResponseHeaders? The main change is the implicit swap of the streams. I would be agreeable with this if `sendUpgradeResponse()` simply called `sendResponseHeaders(101, 0)` for convenience. For context on why I would prefer to stick with `sendResponseHeaders`, there are other impls that currently support sending 101 in this way and I would like my code to be compatible so I can cleanly switch to the JDK implementation (Assuming the feature is accepted). ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27751#issuecomment-3407455711
