On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 11:06:22 GMT, Volkan Yazici <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hello Volkan, I had considered `-1`, but the call site where this method's >> return value is used is already equipped with dealing with `0` for response >> code to mean that it's invalid. I can still return -1 here but that would >> then require additional changes to the call site to treat -1 the same as 0. >> Given that the call site is already a bit involved, I decided to use 0 and >> keep it simple. Let me know if you would like me to change that. > >> Let me know if you would like me to change that. > > It is all good if you had already considered it. Please proceed as you wish. I went back and looked at this again. Apart from 200 and 407 response codes, that call site treats other response codes as errorneous. So it shouldn't matter if we return -1 from this new method. I've updated the PR to follow your suggestion. The test continues to pass with this change. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/30466#discussion_r3010491864
