Re: RFR [9] 8143554: UnsupportedOperationException is not thrown for unsupported options

On 13/01/2016 15:48, Svetlana Nikandrova wrote: Alan, thank you for you replay. Here is my updated webrev with formatting fixes. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kshefov/8143554/webrev.03/ About getSocket() check - you are right, it is

Re: RFR [9] 8143554: UnsupportedOperationException is not thrown for unsupported options

Thank you, Alan! If nobody has any objections I'll ask to push this fix. Thank you, Svetlana On 15.01.2016 16:21, Alan Bateman wrote: On 13/01/2016 15:48, Svetlana Nikandrova wrote: Alan, thank you for you replay. Here is my updated webrev with formatting fixes.

Re: RFR [9] 8143554: UnsupportedOperationException is not thrown for unsupported options

Alan, thank you for you replay. Here is my updated webrev with formatting fixes. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kshefov/8143554/webrev.03/ About getSocket() check - you are right, it is because there are Socket options unsupported by

Re: RFR [9] 8143554: UnsupportedOperationException is not thrown for unsupported options

On 23/12/2015 11:22, Svetlana Nikandrova wrote: Little remainder. On 19.12.2015 1:32, Svetlana Nikandrova wrote: Alan, Michael, thank you for your feedback. As you suggested I moved checking code down to the implementation. Please see updated webrev:

Re: RFR [9] 8143554: UnsupportedOperationException is not thrown for unsupported options

Little remainder. On 19.12.2015 1:32, Svetlana Nikandrova wrote: Alan, Michael, thank you for your feedback. As you suggested I moved checking code down to the implementation. Please see updated webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kshefov/8143554/webrev.02/

Re: RFR [9] 8143554: UnsupportedOperationException is not thrown for unsupported options

Alan, Michael, thank you for your feedback. As you suggested I moved checking code down to the implementation. Please see updated webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kshefov/8143554/webrev.02/ Thank you, Svetlana On 08.12.2015

Re: RFR [9] 8143554: UnsupportedOperationException is not thrown for unsupported options

I'm sure Michael will look at this but I have a question - shouldn't SocketImpl throw UOE for this case? I'm just wondering if checking the supported options in setOption/getOption is just covering up an issue with the SocketImpl methods. -Alan On 08/12/2015 12:36, Svetlana Nikandrova

Re: RFR [9] 8143554: UnsupportedOperationException is not thrown for unsupported options

Hi Alan, thank you for your replay. Please let me explain a little. For example ServerSocket and Socket have different supported options set, but the same SocketImpl under the hood. Yes, SocketImpl's setOptions() and getOptions() can be modified to add additional check for the actual socket

Re: RFR [9] 8143554: UnsupportedOperationException is not thrown for unsupported options

Hi Artem, thank you for your comments. You are right in both cases. I changed to "else if" and removed IAE exception from main(). Please see updated review: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kshefov/8143554/webrev.01/ Thank you,

Re: RFR [9] 8143554: UnsupportedOperationException is not thrown for unsupported options

Hi Svetlana, I'll leave the mail review to official reviewers, a couple of minor comments about your test. It seems to work fine, but you may want to use "else if" in UnsupportedOptionsTest.getOption() method because "Unsupported socket type" error can occure in case of supported socket

RFR [9] 8143554: UnsupportedOperationException is not thrown for unsupported options

Hello, please review a simple fix for: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8143554 See webrev here: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kshefov/8143554/webrev.00/ Fix added explicit check for option support to getOption and setOption