RFR: 8351339: WebSocket::sendBinary assume that user supplied buffers are BIG_ENDIAN [v2]

[Volkan Yazici]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 18:58:15 GMT, Mark Sheppard <msheppar at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> src/java.net.http/share/classes/jdk/internal/net/http/websocket/Frame.java line 105:
>> 
>>> 103:          * The source and the destination buffers may be the same instance.
>>> 104:          */
>>> 105:         static void mask(ByteBuffer src, ByteBuffer dst, int mask) {
>> 
>> Ok - I'm going to start painting the bikeshed here. Though I like the name `mask`, the fact that there was a method called `mask` before that did something completely different makes me pause. Maybe we should not reuse the name `mask` here, and either keep `transferMasking` or use a new name like `applyMask`. One of my concern is backporting, where `mask` means something else in previous releases. We'd have to remember that in one release it means something and in the next it means something different.
>
> Here's an undercoat:  what does the method so as per its Java doc -  its copies data from one buffer to another applying a mask. Thus copyWithMask,  or transferWithMask

> use a new name like `applyMask` ... One of my concern is backporting

@dfuch, right. Introduced more backport-friendly naming changes in a7d336056c2816991568bb2d69ccd033dd441b31:

- `transferMasking` to `applyMask`
- `initGallopingMasking` to `initGallopingMask`
- `doGallopingMasking` to `applyGallopingMask`
- `doPlainMasking` to `applyPlainMask`

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24033#discussion_r1995286535