On 30 Sep 2014, at 08:47, Daniel Fuchs <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 30/09/14 17:31, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 30/09/2014 08:21, Mark Sheppard wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Please oblige and review the following small change to test
>>> test/java/net/InetAddress/IPv4Formats.java
>>>
>>> --- a/test/java/net/InetAddress/IPv4Formats.java Tue Sep 30
>>> 13:25:04 2014 +0100
>>> +++ b/test/java/net/InetAddress/IPv4Formats.java Tue Sep 30
>>> 15:11:05 2014 +0100
>>> @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
>>> {"126.1", "126.0.0.1"},
>>> {"128.50.65534", "128.50.255.254"},
>>> {"192.168.1.2", "192.168.1.2"},
>>> - {"hello.foo.bar", null},
>>> + {"somehost.some-domain", null},
>>> {"1024.1.2.3", null},
>>> {"128.14.66000", null }
>> This looks okay to me, at least until somehost.some-domain starts to be
>> resolved to some address :-)
+1
> I wonder: would something like
>
> "x-" + UUID.randomUUID().toString() + "-x.some-domain"
>
> result in a syntactically valid address? If so it might
> reduce the chances of collision…
The collision here is as a result of the top-level domain, so I’m not sure it
is necessary to “randomize” the fully qualified domain name.
-Chris.
>
> best regards,
>
> -- daniel
>
>>
>> -Alan
