Hi,
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
> Regarding resource management. This one is tricky. For HTTP Michael had a
> clever trick of piggy backing off the back pressure support, but i think that
> might be too clever as it is conflating two independent actions. I have a
> hunch
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
> Hi Pavel, Simone,
>
> One way to make progress is to get the basic shape of the API agreed on
> without flow/resource management features. That probably represented the
> simplest form. I think we are very close to that.
>
> Then lets iterate f
Hi Pavel, Simone,
One way to make progress is to get the basic shape of the API agreed on without
flow/resource management features. That probably represented the simplest form.
I think we are very close to that.
Then lets iterate from that form and consider the additional features
(back-press
This looks okay to me.
On 09/10/2015 14:52, Chris Hegarty wrote:
It was pointed out that the updated URL spec that describes how
URL protocol handlers are located isn't prominent in the
avadoc. In particular it was noted that it's not linked from
URLStreamHandlerFactory or URLStreamHandlerProv
It was pointed out that the updated URL spec that describes how
URL protocol handlers are located isn't prominent in the
avadoc. In particular it was noted that it's not linked from
URLStreamHandlerFactory or URLStreamHandlerProvider.
Adding such links will make it clear how these classes tie
t
> On 8 Oct 2015, at 20:51, Simone Bordet wrote:
>
> What it is still missing is the fact that there is no specification
> about the onXXX methods regarding the lifecycle of the parameters
> passed in.
There is, actually. I have put it as a top-level javadoc, not as a javadoc to
each single meth
