RFR(S): 8251517: [TESTBUG] com/sun/net/httpserver/bugs/B6393710.java does not scale socket timeout

Hi, Bug: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ngasson/8251517/webrev.0/ Webrev: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8251517 This case fails in our testing when run with -Xcomp on a fastdebug build. The 5s socket read timeout is too short for this configuration. Fix by scaling by the jtreg timeout fac

Re: RFR[7164518]: 'No PortUnreachableException when connecting to a non-existing DatagramSocket (mac)'

Hi Patrick, LGTM! best regards, -- daniel On 13/08/2020 19:54, Patrick Concannon wrote: Hi, Could someone please review my fix for JDK-7164518 — 'No PortUnreachableException when connecting to a non-existing DatagramSocket (Mac)’ ? This test failed with a `SocketTimeoutException` instead

RFR[7164518]: 'No PortUnreachableException when connecting to a non-existing DatagramSocket (mac)'

Hi, Could someone please review my fix for JDK-7164518 — 'No PortUnreachableException when connecting to a non-existing DatagramSocket (Mac)’ ? This test failed with a `SocketTimeoutException` instead of the expected `PortUnreachableException`. However, the issue causing this has been resolve

Re: Fix for Javadoc errors in java.base

On 8/13/20 1:21 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: --- old/src/java.base/share/classes/com/sun/crypto/provider/DHPrivateKey.java 2020-07-25 23:46:21.233726447 +0530 +++ new/src/java.base/share/classes/com/sun/crypto/provider/DHPrivateKey.java 2020-07-25 23:46:20.721720857 +0530 @@ -96,8 +96,6 @@

Re: Fix for Javadoc errors in java.base

On 8/13/20 10:13 AM, Sean Mullan wrote: On 8/13/20 11:05 AM, Julia Boes wrote: Hi Vipin, Thanks for providing this fix, I'm happy to sponsor your change. To complete the review, we still need someone to green light the remaining changes below. I'm looping in net-dev and security-dev to hav

Re: Fix for Javadoc errors in java.base

On 8/13/20 11:05 AM, Julia Boes wrote: Hi Vipin, Thanks for providing this fix, I'm happy to sponsor your change. To complete the review, we still need someone to green light the remaining changes below. I'm looping in net-dev and security-dev to have a look. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.n

Re: Fix for Javadoc errors in java.base

Hi Vipin, Julia, On 13/08/2020 16:05, Julia Boes wrote: Hi Vipin, Thanks for providing this fix, I'm happy to sponsor your change. To complete the review, we still need someone to green light the remaining changes below. I'm looping in net-dev and security-dev to have a look. Changes to Soc

Re: RFR[8240901]: 'Add a test to check that large datagrams are sent/received on the network correctly'

On 13/08/2020 11:07, Patrick Concannon wrote: Hi, Daniel: Thanks for spotting these. I’ve made these changes and incorporated them into the new webrev below. Alan: I’ve added the tags, and trimmed the debug message as you’ve suggested. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pconcannon/8240901/webrevs/

Re: Fix for Javadoc errors in java.base

Hi Vipin, Thanks for providing this fix, I'm happy to sponsor your change. To complete the review, we still need someone to green light the remaining changes below. I'm looping in net-dev and security-dev to have a look. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8251542 Webrev: http://cr

Re: RFR[8189744]: 'Deprecate the JDK-specific API for setting socket options, jdk.net.Sockets’

> On 13 Aug 2020, at 14:08, Patrick Concannon > wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > Thanks for taking a look. > > Here is a link to the CSR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8251532 > LGTM. -Chris.

Re: RFR[8189744]: 'Deprecate the JDK-specific API for setting socket options, jdk.net.Sockets’

Hi Daniel, Thanks for taking a look. Here is a link to the CSR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8251532 Kind regards, Patrick > On 13 Aug 2020, at 10:58, Daniel Fuchs wrote: > > Hi Patrick, > > This looks fine to me. > You will need a CSR though. > > best regards, > > -- daniel >

Re: [java.net.http.HttpClient] Active monitoring of resolved IP addresses

Hi, Were you able to have a quick look at what I have done to see whether it might be better integrated into OpenJDK? Do you think the use case is valuable to be better handled? I actually use such mechanisms in production to have a proper view on what are the IP available for a service API. In c

Re: RFR[8240901]: 'Add a test to check that large datagrams are sent/received on the network correctly'

Thanks Patrick! That looks good to me. best regards, -- daniel On 13/08/2020 11:07, Patrick Concannon wrote: Hi, Daniel: Thanks for spotting these. I’ve made these changes and incorporated them into the new webrev below. Alan: I’ve added the tags, and trimmed the debug message as you’ve su

Re: RFR[8240901]: 'Add a test to check that large datagrams are sent/received on the network correctly'

Hi, Daniel: Thanks for spotting these. I’ve made these changes and incorporated them into the new webrev below. Alan: I’ve added the tags, and trimmed the debug message as you’ve suggested. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pconcannon/8240901/webrevs/webrev.02/ Kind regards, Patrick > On 12 Aug 20

Re: RFR[8189744]: 'Deprecate the JDK-specific API for setting socket options, jdk.net.Sockets’

Hi Patrick, This looks fine to me. You will need a CSR though. best regards, -- daniel On 13/08/2020 09:40, Patrick Concannon wrote: Hi, Could someone please review my fix for JDK-8189744 — 'Deprecate the JDK-specific API for setting socket options, jdk.net.Sockets’ ? The JDK-specific API

RFR[8189744]: 'Deprecate the JDK-specific API for setting socket options, jdk.net.Sockets’

Hi, Could someone please review my fix for JDK-8189744 — 'Deprecate the JDK-specific API for setting socket options, jdk.net.Sockets’ ? The JDK-specific API `jdk.net.Sockets` has been redundant since Java SE 9 added standard methods to get/set socket options and retrieve per-Socket supported o