RFR: 8351339: WebSocket::sendBinary assume that user supplied buffers are BIG_ENDIAN [v3]

[Mark Sheppard]

On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 10:11:29 GMT, Volkan Yazici <vyazici at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Fixes endian handling `jdk.internal.net.http.websocket.Frame.Masker`.
>> 
>> ### Implementation notes
>> 
>> I deleted the `Frame` clone in tests, and rewired the test code depending on it to the actual `Frame`. To enable this, I relaxed the visibility of the actual `Frame`. I guess the `Frame` clone was introduced to have strict visibility in the actual `Frame`. Though this is not needed since the actual `Frame` is in an internal package. Plus, the fact that bug is in the `Frame` class hints in the direction that there should be one `Frame`.
>
> Volkan Yazici has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Make method name changes backport-friendly

persisting with method nomenclature (or painting the bikeshed again). What’s in a name?

    reset is really init() or setMask()

    Currently you have a static applyMask() method and a non static applyMask() — is that ideal ?

   The Galloping mask methods, there has to be a more semantically meaningful name  e.g. applyLongMaskRepeating or applyVectorMaskRepeating
    (on your horse rather than on yer bike ;-)


  I still think the following looking meaningful

        public void applyMask(ByteBuffer src, ByteBuffer dst, theMask) {
            if (src.order() == dst.order()) {
                initLongVectorMask(src, dst, theMask);
                applyLongVectorMask(src, dst, theMask);
            }
            endApplyMask(src, dst, theMask);
        }

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24033#issuecomment-2724999193