WebSocket Pepper API: allow to close connection without code and reason

ppapi/api/ppb_websocket.idl

Index: ppapi/api/ppb_websocket.idl
diff --git a/ppapi/api/ppb_websocket.idl b/ppapi/api/ppb_websocket.idl
index 1e138bb80b47bf8a405a99177edef010c7321f7d..557272c5ac718d6689566055fd7788ab4677f8ac 100644
--- a/ppapi/api/ppb_websocket.idl
+++ b/ppapi/api/ppb_websocket.idl
@@ -56,7 +56,15 @@ enum PP_WebSocketReadyState {
  * <code>PP_WEBSOCKETSTATUSCODE_USER_PRIVATE_MAX</code> are valid for Close().
  */
 [assert_size(4)]
-enum PP_WebSocketCloseCode {
+enum PP_WebSocketStatusCode {

[dmichael (off chromium), 2012/05/17 20:03:16]

Sorry I didn't notice this before...  you're breaking source compatibility here.
I.e., existing websocket code may break and need to be modified when they update
to a new SDK that includes this change.

We can do this, but... I try to avoid it unless there's a pretty good reason. Is
it worth it in this case? Is this to bring it closer to the updated spec? I
still see "close code" phrasing in the latest spec.

[Takashi Toyoshima, 2012/05/30 10:15:46]

The reason why I changed enum name here is that the enum members have different
prefix 'PP_WEBSOCKETSTATUSCODE_' from the enum name. Originally this is my old
mistake and looks inconsistent to other PPAPI enums.

Actually, I'm not sure that we should keep this enum name or not. I'll agree
your opinion.

[dmichael (off chromium), 2012/05/30 15:20:11]

I see.
I can see how the new name would be somewhat better, but I don't think it's
better enough to be worth breaking source compatibility.

+  /**
+   * Indicates to request closing connection without status code and reasom.

[dmichael (off chromium), 2012/05/17 20:03:16]

nit: reasom->reason

[Takashi Toyoshima, 2012/05/30 10:15:46]

Done.

+   * The code 1005 is forbidden to send in actual close frames by the RFC.
+   * PP_WebSocket reuses this code internally and the code will never appear in
+   * the actual close frames.

[dmichael (off chromium), 2012/05/17 20:03:16]

nit: I think this is information most developers won't care about. I would maybe
put it in a separate paragraph and in parentheses to de-emphasize it. It's kind
of an implementation detail. I.e.,
"(Note that the code 1005..."

[Takashi Toyoshima, 2012/05/30 10:15:46]

Agreed.
Done.

+   */
+  PP_WEBSOCKETSTATUSCODE_NOT_SPECIFIED = 1005,
+
   /**
    * Status codes in the range 0-999 are not used.
    */
@@ -244,7 +252,8 @@ interface PPB_WebSocket {
    * @param[in] web_socket A <code>PP_Resource</code> corresponding to a
    * WebSocket.
    *
-   * @param[in] code The WebSocket close code. This is ignored if it is 0.
+   * @param[in] code The WebSocket close code. This is ignored if it is
+   * <code>PP_WEBSOCKETSTATUSCODE_NOT_SPECIFIED</code>.
    * <code>PP_WEBSOCKETSTATUSCODE_NORMAL_CLOSURE</code> must be used for the
    * usual case. To indicate some specific error cases, codes in the range
    * <code>PP_WEBSOCKETSTATUSCODE_USER_REGISTERED_MIN</code> to