On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 11:40:46 GMT, Alan Bateman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/net/ServerSocket.java line 90:
>>
>>> 88: private volatile boolean created; // impl.create(boolean) called
>>> 89: private volatile boolean bound;
>>> 90: private volatile boolean closed;
>>
>> I don't see why these two need to be `volatile`, but we can keep them for
>> extra safety.
>
> isBound and isClose poll the state.
Ah yes, I see. Doing `while (!socket.isClosed()) ...` would be problematic
otherwise.
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/net/ServerSocket.java line 804:
>>
>>> 802: * @see #setSoTimeout(int)
>>> 803: */
>>> 804: public int getSoTimeout() throws IOException {
>>
>> Is it safe to drop `synchronized` here? Any subclasses/implementations rely
>> on mutual exclusion here?
>
> It would be relying on undocumented and inconsistent behavior. I think they
> are left over from when the getter/setter methods were synchronized with
> close or the old socket implementation where the Socket and SocketImpl
> implementation were very tangled. Methods such as xxxReuseAddress don't
> synchronize, another inconsistency. I can drop the removal of synchronized
> from the patch but it really don't serve any purpose here.
All right then.
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/6712
