Updated,
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prappo/8151678/webrev.01/
> On 30 Aug 2019, at 12:28, Daniel Fuchs <daniel.fu...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Pavel,
>
> Looks probably OK ;-)
>
> One thing though is that it's not always guaranteed that
> InetAddress.getByName("localhost") will resolve to the same
> address than that returned by InetAddess.getLoopbackAddress(),
> so it may be better to use the literal address (which may be
> an IPv6 literal requiring enclosing "[" "]") rather than
> the hostname when building the LDAP URL.
>
> best regards,
>
> -- daniel
>
> On 30/08/2019 11:53, Pavel Rappo wrote:
>> //
>> // Dear maintainer:
>> //
>> // Once you are done trying to 'optimize' this
>> routine,
>> // and have realized what a terrible mistake that
>> was,
>> // please increment the following counter as a
>> warning
>> // to the next guy:
>> //
>> // total_hours_wasted_here = 42
>> //
>> ---
>> [1]
>> Hello,
>> Please review the following change:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prappo/8151678/webrev.00/
>> Testing timeouts is not an easy task. The test in question has always been
>> problematic. There have been many attempts to address the unreliability of
>> that
>> test and during its lifetime the test has been tagged (and subsequently
>> untagged) as intermittent and eventually was put into the problem list.
>> The proposed change overhauls the test and patches the code that the test
>> exercises.
>> The code change addresses the multithreading issue associated with 8160768
>> [2].
>> This issue manifests itself as different runtime exceptions that are thrown
>> rather quickly from calls that the test expects to block for a substantial
>> amount of time. Since that test catches this issue reliably, no new tests are
>> introduced.
>> The overhauled test is excluded from the problem list. Before doing so I had
>> run
>> the test on all the platforms for some 40,000 (4.0E4) times. I have not
>> encountered any failures.
>> And yet I'm under no illusion that this change fixes all the issues. I
>> strongly
>> suspect that the test will eventually fail again. I’ve attempted to prepare
>> for
>> that by adding extra diagnostic outputs and improving the usefulness of
>> traces.
>> -Pavel
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> [1]
>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/184618/what-is-the-best-comment-in-source-code-you-have-ever-encountered
>> [2] 8160768: Add capability to custom resolve host/domain names within the
>> default JNDI LDAP provider
>
