On Fri, 31 Oct 2025 15:08:50 GMT, Michael McMahon <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Good point. But we have already sent the status code. I guess we should >> throw IOException in this case, so that the ServerImpl closes the >> connection, ensuring that the client notices that the response was not >> entirely fulfilled? > > I'll have to check the RFC but it might be allowable to return a shorter > range than was requested, but the actual range to be returned would have to > have been specified in the `Content-Range` header. You would have to check > the length of the file first. So, EOF wouldn't occur except in very unusual > circumstances. Otherwise, yes throwing IOE would close the connection > signaling the error. The `ranges` list in the arguments is constructed so that each range's end option does not exceed the file size: if a requested range goes beyond the file lengh, it is clamped accordingly. There fore, I don't thiunk any foundamental change is needed here. We could add an `assert` (and a comment) to make this assumption explict, or possibly throw an IOE in case the file was truncated or modified during editing. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28021#discussion_r2481765572
