On 29/04/2020 21:08, Patrick Concannon wrote:
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pconcannon/8243507/webrevs/webrev.01/
Thanks Patrick. LGTM.
Pedantically, this test might temporarily leak instances
of DatagramSocket when it detects a bug. That is, for
instance - in the case where `new
s
Mark
*From:* net-dev on behalf of Daniel
Fuchs
*Sent:* Tuesday 28 April 2020 15:32
*To:* Patrick Concannon ; OpenJDK
Network Dev list
*Subject:* Re: RFR[8243507]: 'DatagramSocket constructors don’t always
specify what happens when passed invalid parameter
Fuchs
Sent: Tuesday 28 April 2020 15:32
To: Patrick Concannon ; OpenJDK Network Dev list
Subject: Re: RFR[8243507]: 'DatagramSocket constructors don’t always specify
what happens when passed invalid parameters'
Hi Patrick,
Looks good to me.
I realize we haven't specified what happens
Hi Patrick,
Looks good to me.
I realize we haven't specified what happens if the `laddr` is null.
Are you planning to fix that in a separate changeset or tag it to
this one?
Maybe we should unify the description of the `port` parameter in
the two constructors:
327 * @param port port
Hi,
Could someone please review my fix for JDK-8243507 'DatagramSocket
constructors don’t always specify what happens when passed invalid
parameters'?
Currently, the DatagramSocket constructor `DatagramSocket(SocketAddress
bindaddr)` doesn't specify what happens if passed a SocketAddress
