RFR: 8324209: Check implementation of Expect: 100-continue in the java.net.http.HttpClient [v3]

[Daniel Fuchs]

On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 11:05:52 GMT, Jaikiran Pai <jpai at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Thats a good point, changing the timeunit to nanos is probably for the best.
>> 
>> I wonder in the case of timeout being equal to 0 what the best way to handle it is though? 
>> perhaps something like
>> ```         
>>         long responseTimeout = TimeUnit.SECONDS.toNanos(5);
>>         if (request.timeout().isPresent()
>>                 && request.timeout().get().getNano() > 0
>>                 && request.timeout().get().getNano() < responseTimeout) {
>>             responseTimeout = request.timeout().get().getNano();
>>         }
>
>> I wonder in the case of timeout being equal to 0 what the best way to handle it is though?
> 
> The `HttpRequest.Builder.timeout()` doesn't allow for `0` (or negative) value to be specified for the timeout duration. So if the request timeout is indeed specified, then we can be sure that the nanos representation of it here will be greater than 0. We could just add an `assert` for that, after converting it to nanos (when the request timeout is present). Something like this untested code:
> 
> 
> long timeoutNanos = TimeUnit.SECONDS.toNanos(5);
> if(request.timeout().isPresent() {
> 	final long rtNanos = request.timeout().get().getNano();
> 	assert rtNanos > 0 : "unexpected request timeout: " + rtNanos;
> 	timeoutNanos = Math.min(timeoutNanos, rt);
> });

I would just let 0 be 0: no need to split 1ms in 500_000 nanos :-)

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20525#discussion_r1716739478