Sounds good to me.
Stuart
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Shing Wai Chan
<shing.wai.chan_at_oracle.com> wrote:
> Any comments on the following?
>
> Shing Wai Chan
>
>> On Mar 24, 2017, at 5:49 PM, Shing Wai Chan <shing.wai.chan_at_oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> I have modified the following change locally in my workspace. The result is as follows:
>> /**
>> * Returns a new instance of {_at_link PushBuilder} for issuing server push
>> * responses from the current request. If the current connection does not
>> * support server push, or server push has been disabled by the
>> * client via a {_at_code SETTINGS_ENABLE_PUSH} settings frame value of
>> * {_at_code 0} (zero), it will return null.
>> *
>> * @implSpec
>> * The default implementation returns null.
>> *
>> * @return a {_at_link PushBuilder} for issuing server push responses
>> * from the current request.
>> *
>> * @since Servlet 4.0
>> */
>> default public PushBuilder newPushBuilder() {
>> return null;
>> }
>>
>> Now, newPushBuilder() can return null.
>> Just want to make sure that it is ok to EG with this.
>> Please respond by close of business Wednesday 29 March.
>>
>> Shing Wai Chan
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 23, 2017, at 3:16 PM, Shing Wai Chan <shing.wai.chan_at_oracle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> We had the pleasure of discussing HTTP/2 push with Simone Bordet yesterday. He suggested that we rename HttpServletRequest#getPushBuilder() to HttpServletRequest#newPushBuilder().
>>>
>>> This is a good idea as we have the following in javadoc of PushBuilder:
>>>
>>> A PushBuilder is obtained by calling HttpServletRequest.getPushBuilder(). Each call to this method will return a new instance of a PushBuilder based off the current HttpServletRequest. Any mutations to the returned PushBuilder are not reflected on future returns.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Please respond by close of business Tuseday 28 March.
>>> In the absence of feedback, we'll just go with this proposal.
>>>
>>> Shing Wai Chan
>>
>