Javadoc change in HttpExchange makes external implementations non-complaint

[Jaikiran Pai]

Hello Ethan,

Thank you for noticing this and bringing this up here. I've raised 
https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8345577 and we will address this 
shortly.

-Jaikiran

On 05/12/24 3:22 am, Ethan McCue wrote:
> Sorry
>
> Before:
>
>      * {@link Filter} modules may store arbitrary objects with {@code 
> HttpExchange}
>      * instances as an out-of-band communication mechanism. Other filters
>      * or the exchange handler may then access these objects.
>
> Bungled the copy-paste
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 6:49 AM Ethan McCue <ethan at mccue.dev> wrote:
>
>     Hi all,
>
>     This change
>     (https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/40ae4699622cca72830acd146b7b5c4efd5a43ec)
>     makes the Jetty implementation of the SPI be no longer fit the
>     Javadoc.
>
>     HttpContexts are not per-request while the previous Javadoc
>     implied that the attribute mechanism on exchanges was.
>
>     Before:
>
>          * Sets an attribute with the given {@code name} and {@code
>     value} in this exchange's
>          * {@linkplain HttpContext#getAttributes() context attributes}.
>          * or the exchange handler may then access these objects.
>
>     After:
>
>          * Sets an attribute with the given {@code name} and {@code
>     value} in this exchange's
>          * {@linkplain HttpContext#getAttributes() context attributes}.
>          *
>          * @apiNote {@link Filter} modules may store arbitrary objects
>     as attributes through
>          * {@code HttpExchange} instances as an out-of-band
>     communication mechanism. Other filters
>          * or the exchange handler may then access these objects.
>
>     The Jetty implementation, I think rightfully, assumed that this
>     context was per-request and implemented it as so.
>
>     https://github.com/jetty/jetty.project/blob/jetty-12.0.x/jetty-core/jetty-http-spi/src/main/java/org/eclipse/jetty/http/spi/JettyHttpExchangeDelegate.java#L223
>
>     As such, I don't think simply a javadoc change as a resolution to
>     these issues is applicable
>
>     https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8345233
>     https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8235786
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/net-dev/attachments/20241205/b08eb5f7/attachment.htm>