Re: [classlib] imcompatible with RI?

[Paulex Yang]

Andrew Zhang wrote:
On 7/27/06, Mikhail Fursov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

If API says (from the forst message message):
"If this channel was not created by the same provider as the given
selector"
then the way you create the channel but not provider is important.
?


Do you mean we should focus on the creator of selector?

In fact,  Selector.open() uses SelectorProvider().provider() to create 
a new
selector.

No matter what the logic is, "assertSame(channel.provider(),
selector.provider());" clearly shows the channel was created by the same
provider as the selector, right?
Then the channel can be registered onto the selector. But RI throws
exception.
IIUC, Mikhail meant how the Selector is created is not the key, but how 
channel is created, i.e., common way of get selectable channel instance 
is SelectorProvider.openXXXX(), so that the SelectorProvider should know 
exactly the implementation class what the channel is, but the 
MockChannel may break the contract.

Am I missing something?
Thanks!


On 7/27/06, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 7/27/06, Paulex Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Andrew Zhang wrote:
> > > Seems strange.
> > >
> > > Following test fails against RI.
> > >
> > > The spec of SelectableChannel.register() says:
> "IllegalSelectorExceptoin
> > > -- If this channel was not created by the same provider as the 
given
> > > selector".
> > Same instance or same SelectorProvider subclass?
>
>
> I think it's same instance. As you may notice, I use "assertSame(
> channel.provider(), selector.provider());" in the test.
>
> RI passes this assert statement and fails at channel.register(...)
because
> of IllegalSelectorException.
>
> That's why I think RI is illogical in this case.
>
> Any comments?
>
> >
> > > I suggest follow spec for this case. Thanks!
> > >
> > > public void test_channel() throws Exception {
> > >        SelectorProvider provider = SelectorProvider.provider();
> > >        Selector selector = Selector.open();
> > >        MockChannel channel = new MockChannel(provider);
> > >        channel.configureBlocking(false);
> > >        assertSame(channel.provider(), selector.provider());
> > > // test fails here against RI, IllegalSelectorException is thrown
> > >        channel.register(selector, SelectionKey.OP_READ);
> > >        selector.select();
> > >    }
> > >
> > > class MockChannel extends SocketChannel {
> > >
> > >    protected MockChannel(SelectorProvider arg0) {
> > >        super(arg0);
> > >    }
> > >
> > >    public Socket socket() {
> > >        return null;
> > >    }
> > >
> > >    public boolean isConnected() {
> > >        return false;
> > >    }
> > >
> > >    public boolean isConnectionPending() {
> > >        return false;
> > >    }
> > >
> > >    public boolean connect(SocketAddress arg0) throws IOException {
> > >        return false;
> > >    }
> > >
> > >    public boolean finishConnect() throws IOException {
> > >        return false;
> > >    }
> > >
> > >    public int read(ByteBuffer arg0) throws IOException {
> > >        return 0;
> > >    }
> > >
> > >    public long read(ByteBuffer[] arg0, int arg1, int arg2) throws
> > > IOException {
> > >        return 0;
> > >    }
> > >
> > >    public int write(ByteBuffer arg0) throws IOException {
> > >        return 0;
> > >    }
> > >
> > >    public long write(ByteBuffer[] arg0, int arg1, int arg2) throws
> > > IOException {
> > >        return 0;
> > >    }
> > >
> > >    protected void implCloseSelectableChannel() throws 
IOException {
> > >
> > >    }
> > >
> > >    protected void implConfigureBlocking(boolean arg0) throws
> > > IOException {
> > >
> > >    }
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/27/06, Jimmy, Jing Lv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi:
> > >>     I find that RI behaves strange in
> > >> java.nio.channels.SelectableChannel.register. in NIO, channels 
and
> > >> selector must be created by Provider. The doc reads: (Invoking
> > >> register() should throw) "IllegalSelectorException - If this
channel
> > was
> > >> not created by the same provider as the given selector". To check
if
> > the
> > >> two providers are the same, Harmony use
> > >> "if(selector.provider()==selector.provider)... ", however it 
seems
> not
> > >> correct.
> > >>     If we mock a channel extends SelectableChannel, put the same
> > >> provider of selector as its provider, and register this 
channel to
> > >> selector, RI fails with a IllegalSelectorException though two
> providers
> > >> are the same. I have no idea if how RI do without checking
providers
> > are
> > >> the same?
> > >>     Another thing is that if a selector has no channels 
register on
> it,
> > >> invoke an operation of select() surely has nothing to do. In this
> way,
> > >> Harmony returns immediately even invoking a block select(), 
however
> RI
> > >> wait forever there, for nothing. I think Harmony's behavior is
> logical,
> > >> but not compatible with RI. It seems a bug of RI, I suggest 
keep it
> as
> > >> it is.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> Best Regards!
> > >>
> > >> Jimmy, Jing Lv
> > >> China Software Development Lab, IBM
> > >>
> > >>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Paulex Yang
> > China Software Development Lab
> > IBM
> >
> >
> >
> > 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Andrew Zhang
> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>
>


--
Mikhail Fursov






--
Paulex Yang
China Software Development Lab
IBM



---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]