Re: RFR[8237890]: 'DatagramPacket::getSocketAddress doesn't specify what happens if address or port are not set'

Hi Patrick et al. a trivial point and a javadoc question trivial item in SendCheck test, there's a comment referring to pkt3 & 4 and invalid port -1. This is no longer the case -- afaik it's now "can't send port 0 " in a SocketException ? I note that there are some java doc changes and wonde

Re: 8238270: java.net HTTP/2 client does not decrease stream count when receives 204 response

Hi Chris, The fix ensures that any pending data frame will still be processed after 204 has been received - thus triggering the logic that eventually closes the stream. I suppose that a 204 response MUST have an END_STREAM in its final HEADERS / CONTINUATION frame, right? I have rescanned th

Re: RFR[8237890]: 'DatagramPacket::getSocketAddress doesn't specify what happens if address or port are not set'

> On 16 Apr 2020, at 14:39, Patrick Concannon > wrote: > > ... > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pconcannon/8237890/webrevs/webrev.02/ LGTM. -Chris.

Re: RFR[8237890]: 'DatagramPacket::getSocketAddress doesn't specify what happens if address or port are not set'

Thanks Patrick. Looks good me. best regards, -- daniel On 16/04/2020 14:39, Patrick Concannon wrote: Hi Chris, Thanks for that. I've added the new testcases as requested, and you can find them in the new webrev below. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pconcannon/8237890/webrevs/webrev.02/ Ki

Re: RFR[8237890]: 'DatagramPacket::getSocketAddress doesn't specify what happens if address or port are not set'

Hi Chris, Thanks for that. I've added the new testcases as requested, and you can find them in the new webrev below. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pconcannon/8237890/webrevs/webrev.02/ Kind regards, Patrick On 15/04/2020 16:54, Chris Hegarty wrote: On 15 Apr 2020, at 16:40, Patrick Conca

Re: RFR[8237890]: 'DatagramPacket::getSocketAddress doesn't specify what happens if address or port are not set'

On 15/04/2020 16:40, Patrick Concannon wrote: Hi Alan, Thanks for your feedback. I've updated the fix with your comments and you can find them in the new webrev below. WRT the release note JDK-8237530 , that's a good point. I will look in