On 14 Jan 2014, at 10:53, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> On 14 Jan 2014, at 10:51, Alan Bateman wrote:
>
>> On 14/01/2014 08:28, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>>> On 13 Jan 2014, at 19:29, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>>>
On 13 Jan 2014, at 19:23, Dimitar Mavrodiev wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> I c
On 14 Jan 2014, at 10:51, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 14/01/2014 08:28, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>> On 13 Jan 2014, at 19:29, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>>
>>> On 13 Jan 2014, at 19:23, Dimitar Mavrodiev wrote:
>>>
Hi Chris,
I can't open the link, but yet I wouldn't mind if you folded your
On 14/01/2014 08:28, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 13 Jan 2014, at 19:29, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 13 Jan 2014, at 19:23, Dimitar Mavrodiev wrote:
Hi Chris,
I can't open the link, but yet I wouldn't mind if you folded your patch into
mine.
How embarrassing. Our public facing server is temporari
Hi Chris,
I agree with those changes. Thank you and Alan for sponsoring this patch.
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> On 13 Jan 2014, at 19:29, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>
> > On 13 Jan 2014, at 19:23, Dimitar Mavrodiev
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Chris,
> >>
> >> I can't open the
On 13 Jan 2014, at 19:29, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> On 13 Jan 2014, at 19:23, Dimitar Mavrodiev wrote:
>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> I can't open the link, but yet I wouldn't mind if you folded your patch into
>> mine.
>
> How embarrassing. Our public facing server is temporarily offline so I copied
>
Hi Dimitar,
Thank you for following up with this. I came to the same conclusion as you
earlier today, though I noticed it because the test SocksServer was sending a
single byte at a time, for the initial reply.
I took your latest patch and applied a few minor cleanups, as follows:
http://t4.i
Hi Alan,
I believe to have found and fixed what was causing the failures on Windows.
Here's the webrev
https://googledrive.com/host/0B2CI6Ih--1t5bVVwbVlBRmpVMDg/5/index.html.
I modified java.net.SocksSocketImpl#readSocksReply(..) so that it doesn't
give up on reading after the 3rd attempt, but in
Hi Chris,
I can't open the link, but yet I wouldn't mind if you folded your patch
into mine.
Thanks,
Dimitar
Sent from my mobile device.
On Jan 13, 2014 9:11 PM, "Chris Hegarty" wrote:
> Hi Dimitar,
>
> Thank you for following up with this. I came to the same conclusion as you
> earlier today,
On 13 Jan 2014, at 19:23, Dimitar Mavrodiev wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> I can't open the link, but yet I wouldn't mind if you folded your patch into
> mine.
How embarrassing. Our public facing server is temporarily offline so I copied
the webrev to a temporary server just to verify it, then obviou
Hi Alan,
I finally had the chance to put together a windows build environment(Win7)
and I'm now seeing the same error crop up every once in a while.
To isolate the problem I replaced the socks server
(jdk/test/java/net/Socks/SocksServer.java) I've been using in my test with
JSocks and the test no
Unfortunately I don't have a Windows environment. I'll try to setup one and
look into this.
-Dimitar
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:36 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 07/01/2014 12:29, Dimitar Mavrodiev wrote:
>
>> Hi Alan,
>>
>> I've fixed that. Here's the webrev https://googledrive.com/host/
>> 0B2CI
On 07/01/2014 12:29, Dimitar Mavrodiev wrote:
Hi Alan,
I've fixed that. Here's the webrev
https://googledrive.com/host/0B2CI6Ih--1t5bVVwbVlBRmpVMDg/4/index.html.
Thanks for the update, it seems to be okay now for IPv6 disabled case.
One thing I do see though is that the test fails intermitt
Hi Alan,
I've fixed that. Here's the webrev
https://googledrive.com/host/0B2CI6Ih--1t5bVVwbVlBRmpVMDg/4/index.html.
I've made some changes in the test to ensure that the inet6 address family
is available, there's also a flag controlling if the test should run. It
now runs if the IPv6 stack is ava
On 06/01/2014 16:39, Dimitar Mavrodiev wrote:
Ok, better safe than sorry. Here's the webrev
https://googledrive.com/host/0B2CI6Ih--1t5bVVwbVlBRmpVMDg/3/index.html.
Can you verify that it passes okay when you run jtreg with
-vmoption:-Djava.net.preferIPv4Stack=true . I ask because I don't see a
The jtreg version I am using(4.1 fcs b05) seems to be correctly handling
it. What jtreg version should I be using?
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 06/01/2014 15:21, Dimitar Mavrodiev wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Chris.
>>
>> I've removed the dependency on the internal HttpServer.
Hi Alan,
I wasn't aware that tests might run on machines without the IPv6 stack. Now
the test is skipped should there be no IPv6 address configured on the
loopback iface.
I've also expanded the test to cover the case of DOMAIN_NAME, but I came
across some infrastructure problems. It turned out th
The source changes look good to me too.
I see Alan has commented on the test, and I agree. Trivially, can you
also remove the dependency on the old internal HttpServer, and use the
newer com.sun.net.httpserver API. It is easier to user, and more robust.
You can see an example here [1].
-Chri
On 06/01/14 16:05, Dimitar Mavrodiev wrote:
The jtreg version I am using(4.1 fcs b05) seems to be correctly handling
it. What jtreg version should I be using?
See https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8026362 for a an example of
this.
Did you try to run your test without ::1 enabled?
-Ch
On 06/01/2014 15:21, Dimitar Mavrodiev wrote:
Thanks, Chris.
I've removed the dependency on the internal HttpServer. Here's another
webrev
https://googledrive.com/host/0B2CI6Ih--1t5bVVwbVlBRmpVMDg/2/index.html.
I'm not 100% sure how jtreg handles TestNG tests throwing SkipException.
If it doe
Thanks, Chris.
I've removed the dependency on the internal HttpServer. Here's another
webrev
https://googledrive.com/host/0B2CI6Ih--1t5bVVwbVlBRmpVMDg/2/index.html.
Best,
Dimitar
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> The source changes look good to me too.
>
> I see Alan has c
Ok, better safe than sorry. Here's the webrev
https://googledrive.com/host/0B2CI6Ih--1t5bVVwbVlBRmpVMDg/3/index.html.
Best,
Dimitar
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> On 06/01/14 16:18, Dimitar Mavrodiev wrote:
>
>> Yes, I've disabled IPv6 and it came out as successful in th
On 06/01/14 16:18, Dimitar Mavrodiev wrote:
Yes, I've disabled IPv6 and it came out as successful in the report. Is
it possible that jtreg behaves differently across different OSes? I am
using it on Linux and OSX, the bug report mentions Windows.
It is possible, but I don't see any special hand
Yes, I've disabled IPv6 and it came out as successful in the report. Is it
possible that jtreg behaves differently across different OSes? I am using
it on Linux and OSX, the bug report mentions Windows.
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> On 06/01/14 16:05, Dimitar Mavrodiev w
On 03/01/2014 11:04, Dimitar Mavrodiev wrote:
Greetings all,
I've fixed this and created a test to cover it, is there a sponsor who
could push this through? Here's a link to the webrev
https://googledrive.com/host/0B2CI6Ih--1t5bVVwbVlBRmpVMDg/index.html.
It's a simple fix that correctly cons
Greetings all,
I've fixed this and created a test to cover it, is there a sponsor who
could push this through? Here's a link to the webrev
https://googledrive.com/host/0B2CI6Ih--1t5bVVwbVlBRmpVMDg/index.html.
It's a simple fix that correctly consumes the bytes from a SOCKS reply
which represent a
25 matches
Mail list logo
