Andrew Zhang wrote: > On 6/23/06, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Andrew Zhang wrote: >> > Hi Alexander, >> > >> > Thanks for your kind reminder. >> > >> > Certainly I'll use sth. like Support_PortManager.getNextPort() to avoid >> > such >> > port conflict issue. >> >> No, please! Don't perpetuate that abomination<g>! Alexander is right, >> you should bind to port 0 and let the OS assign one. > > > Yes, I agree that getNextPort doesn't really get the next free port, and > bind to port 0 is the right way. > > But if I remembered clearly, in Jetty based tests thread, someone objected > automatically select port. > "> What's the problem if the port is selected automatically? > > Repeatability. IMO, there should be no random elements in our testing. > That leads to frustration, fear, despair, pathos, pain, agony, angst and > much pulling of limited resources, like hair, in my case."
That was me, and that was to ensure repeatability :) Of course, I had a slightly different notion of a test in mind, not one where the same thread is both the client and server. In fact, what I was imagining was that the server and client were in separate VMs at least, and separate machines too. geir --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
