Alexey, I saw that you had assigned the bug http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-1879 to yourself. What do you think of the following fix? http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12345485/HARMONY-1879-HttpURLConnectionTest(3).patch
Does it worth to be committed as is? I've got one more idea of what we can do about this issue, but it complicates things, and this fix is enough to make things work. All, Your comments about the patch are welcome. With best regards, Alexei On 11/24/06, Alexei Fedotov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It was mine request? Oh, guy, it seems I'm getting old... :-) On 11/23/06, Alexey Petrenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2006/11/23, Alexei Fedotov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Gregory, this is a good question. Let me tell this long story. > > > > Jimmy tried to run the test using J9 VM and the test passed. I beleive > > Alexey Petrenko considered that fact as a justification to move the > > bug to [drlvm] category. Alexey, is my understanding correct? > No. I've changed it by your request. > > SY, Alexey > > > Why the test passed on J9? Denis found out that the issue with test is > > actually server synchronization issue. It is not a surprise that our > > VMs implement threading differently. > > > > Then Denis proposed a fix which made a test less dependent from > > synchronization. > > > > > > > > On 11/22/06, Gregory Shimansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Denis Kishenko wrote: > > > > Dear committers, please take a look on H-1879 > > > > > > Is there a reason why this bug has drlvm category, and has [drlvm] > > > prefix? I see from the history of this bug that it was transferred back > > > and forth. The attached patches change only classlib test... > > > > > > > 2006/11/22, Fedotov, Alexei A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > >> +1 > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >-----Original Message----- > > > >> >From: Denis Kishenko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >> >Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 5:40 PM > > > >> >To: [email protected] > > > >> >Subject: Re: [classlib][net] issue H-1879 HttpURLConnectionTest > > > >> > > > > >> >Alexei, > > > >> > > > > >> >Synchronization of accept() looks like test improvement, so I will > > > >> >attach new patch to fix H-1879 and we will try to find solution for > > > >> >accept synchronization. > > > >> > > > > >> >2006/11/22, Fedotov, Alexei A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > >> >> Ok, I see. Makes sense for me. I cannot imagine anything better at > > > >> this > > > >> >> moment, and if this works, that's great. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> There is still a problem with accept() call which is not > > > >> synchronized, > > > >> >> but I don't see how we can fix this correctly. accept() call is > > > >> >> synchronized using related ServerSocket object, but this doesn't help > > > >> us > > > >> >> - this blocking doesn't release an object lock. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> With best regards, > > > >> >> Alexei Fedotov, > > > >> >> Intel Java & XML Engineering > > > >> >> > > > >> >> >-----Original Message----- > > > >> >> >From: Denis Kishenko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >> >> >Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 8:06 PM > > > >> >> >To: [email protected] > > > >> >> >Subject: Re: [classlib][net] issue H-1879 HttpURLConnectionTest > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> >I can suggest add flag to avoid situation described above (see > > > >> attached > > > >> >> >fix). > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> >2006/11/21, Denis Kishenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > >> >> >> Alexei, > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> Yep, syncronization is necessary but not such way. > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> As you said, test try to control server/proxy starting using > > > >> >> >> bound.wait(5000). It looks like on linux server/proxy thread > > > >> started > > > >> >> >> eallier then on winxp. > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> In other words, what we are waiting for > > > >> >> >> 1. start server thread > > > >> >> >> 2. bound.wait > > > >> >> >> 3. bound.notify > > > >> >> >> 4. start proxy thread > > > >> >> >> 5. bound.wait > > > >> >> >> 6. bound.notify > > > >> >> >> 7. connect > > > >> >> >> but we have on linux > > > >> >> >> 1. start server thread > > > >> >> >> 2. bound.notify > > > >> >> >> 3. bound.wait > > > >> >> >> ---- wait 5 seconds ----- > > > >> >> >> 4. start proxy thread > > > >> >> >> 5. bound.notify > > > >> >> >> 6. bound.wait > > > >> >> >> ---- wait 5 seconds ----- > > > >> >> >> 7. connect > > > >> >> >>
