HttpHeader for Expect

[senivam]

will it be possible to add after this line HttpHeader for Expect?

    /**
     * See <a href="http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.20">HTTP/1.1 documentation</a>.
     */
    public static final String EXPECT = "Expect";

this is required to provide support for HTTP 100-continue handling (see related Jersey bug about this)

[andymc12]

Yes, I think it makes sense to add the Expect header to the list in HttpHeaders. Can you open a pull request adding these lines? Make sure to target the 3.1-SNAPSHOT release since we cannot add it to the 3.0 (master) release. Thanks!

[mkarg]

@andymc12 I agree with you, but just for my own curiosity: What do you expect to break if we add a new static String to this interface? IMHO it would be safe to do it even in master, as nobody would say this is really a feature, and we keep backwards compatibility.

[senivam]

so, just to be clear, shall I do the PR or @mkarg will do that? And how to proceed? :)

[andymc12]

@mkarg

What do you expect to break if we add a new static String to this interface? IMHO it would be safe to do it even in master, as nobody would say this is really a feature, and we keep backwards compatibility.

Nothing should break, afaik, but my understanding was that Jakarta EE 9 was supposed to be binary compatible with Jakarta EE 8 except for the package name change. I would also recommend putting this into 3.1 since @spericas just released 3.0 - I think we could probably re-spin the release, but even if it is allowed to add to 3.0, I don't think this change is worth the trouble to re-spin. If others think strongly that it should go into 3.0, I can be persuaded - but we'd probably want somebody from the platform community to approve first. @spericas @kwsutter @ivargrimstad wdyt?

@senivam if you are ok with waiting until 3.1, then you could open the pull request. If you want to push for inclusion into 3.0, then I would suggest waiting until Santiago or somebody from the platform committee agrees. Thanks!

[spericas]

Yes, this should be 3.1. Looks like @mkarg already set that.

[mkarg]

@senivam Do you confirm that your wanted changes are contained in the 3.1 branch, so we can close this issue? Thanks.

[senivam]

@mkarg yes, sure, the issue can be closed as resolved. Thank you.