Andrew Zhang wrote: > On 6/25/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> 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. > > > Great Geir! > If no one objects, I'm going to fix those "getNextPort()" codes in LUNI/NIO > module.
Don't do it based on my ranting and raving. :) Instead of fixing it, should we stop using it? geir --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
