JDK VS OkHttp

I felt out of the loop, thinking that Zero VM was some kind of new distro for OpenJDK but chasing <https://packages.debian.org/sid/openjdk-22-jre-zero#:~:text=...> to <https://sources.debian.org/src/openjdk-11/11.0.23%2B9-1/debi...> lead me to https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/tree/jdk-22-ga/src/hotspot/cp...

It seems that it's a specific CPU target for the Hotspot JIT for non-mainstream architectures (or for research purposes, as I saw mentioned once)

Completely gutted from the OpenJDK, last I checked. See here for the culprit PR: https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/18688

> Yes, they're changing one aspect of signal handler use to work around this problem. They're not stopping the use of signal handlers in general. Hotspot continues to use signals for efficiency in general. See https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/9059727df135dc90311bd476...

This whole thread is about SIGSEGV, and specifically their SIGSEGV handling. However, catching normal signals is not about efficiency.

Some of their exception handling is still odd: There is no reason for a program that receives SIGILL to ever attempt continuing. But others is fine, like catching SIGFPE to just forward an exception to the calling code.

(Sure, you could construct an argument to say that this is for efficiency if you considered the alternative to be implementing floating point in software so that all exceptions exist in user-space, but hardware floating point is the norm and such alternative would be wholly unreasonable.)

> The wonderful thing about choosing not to care about facts is having whatever opinions you want.

I appreciate the irony of you making such statement, proudly thinking that your opinion equals fact, and therefore any other opinion is not.

This discussion is nothing but subjective opinion vs. subjective opinion. Facts are (hopefully, as I can only speak for myself) inputs to both our opinions, but no opinion about "good" or "bad", "nasty" or not can ever be objective. Objective code quality does not exist.

I remember talking to Brendan about the PreserveFramePointer patch during my first months at Netflix in 2015. As of JDK 21, unfortunately it is no longer a general purpose solution for the JVM, because it prevents a fast path being taken for stack thawing for virtual threads: https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/d32ce65781c1d7815a69ceac...

We will use Square’s Mock Webserver to spin up a mock server which we can use to simulate real api's request to the get coffee endpoint.

OkHttp Documentation

mockwebserver -> https://github.com/square/okhttp/tree/master/mockwebserver

I searched in the OkHttp GitHub project for an advice on which values may be suitable for Android apps nowadays but found no answers (only this old issue which does not help). Since we share a single OkHttp client Singleton for all our retrofit APIs and even Coil, I wonder if the default 5 maxRequestsPerHost is really enough.

You can technically add a Content-Length header for each part. It's not forbidden by the RFC, but nor is it common. It caused [problems](https://github.com/square/okhttp/issues/2138) for OkHttp, and they eventually removed it. Might be fine for internal-only use, though.

Boundaries are a lot like UUIDs, and rely on the same logic. When generating random data, once you have enough bits, the odds are against that sequence of bits ever having been generated before in the universe.

Lets be specific. This is the gradle build file for Squares okhttp client library. How exactly would your bld tool "predict" or "help" with all the parameters needed? There is no need to be defensive. Replace those large build files with your own, show where your approach is better and then understanding will lead to better solutions.

And adding to that: The asynchttpclient library is just a thin wrapper around OkHttp3, so it might be easier to just go with that instead: https://square.github.io/okhttp/

Retrofit in combination with OkHttp for fetching data from server (which hopefully already exists)

OkHttp