On 02/04/2013 17:05, Danny Coward wrote:
> On 3/25/13 3:49 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 25/03/2013 22:46, Danny Coward wrote:
>>> On 3/25/13 6:26 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>> What are the allowed values of T for implementations of
>>>> MessageHandler.Whole<T> and MessageHandler.Partial<T>. My assumption
>>>> (based on OnMessage) is:
>>>> Whole:
>>>> String, Java primitive or class equivalent, Reader, any class with a
>>>> decoder, byte[], ByteBuffer, InputStream
>>>> Partial:
>>>> String, byte[], ByteBuffer
>>> Yes. Is there a test that does not follow the rules here ?
>> No, but the spec isn't particularly clear about what is and what is not
>> allowed. Could some clarification be added?
> Hi Mark - complementing the javadoc on @OnMessage which defines which
> parameter types are allowed (not the same, but obviously related),
> there's an explicit listing in the javadoc for MessageHandler.Partial
> and MessageHandler.Whole on what parametrised types are allowed. I think
> that covers it ?
Sorry for being slow at responding to this. I have been on leave and am
still working through the backlog.
It was a while ago but I am pretty sure I was just looking at the spec
document and not the Javadoc. The Javadoc provides all the detail necessary.
As an aside, I really do not like how the Java specifications (this is a
general complaint, not a WebSocket specific one) are spread between a
document and the Javadoc, especially now that the Javadoc is not
included in the specification document. I would much prefer a single
document that contained all the necessary information.
Mark