Looks good!
Thanks,
/Staffan
On 30 okt 2013, at 12:27, Jaroslav Bachorik <jaroslav.bacho...@oracle.com>
wrote:
> Could I have a reviewer to take a look at this, please?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -JB-
>
> On 23.10.2013 18:18, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Looks good to me!
>>
>> -- daniel
>>
>> On 10/23/13 6:13 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>>> On 23.10.2013 17:49, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>>>> On 10/23/13 5:35 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>>>>> On 23.10.2013 17:32, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Jaroslav,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you considered setting a limit on the number of tries you
>>>>>> will attempt, rather than just 'while (true)'?
>>>>>> It might avoid creating a busy while loop in case there's some global
>>>>>> networking issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> It might be difficult to come up with the right number. Probably a few
>>>>> hundred could be enough even for cases when you hit a contiguous range
>>>>> of ports occupied by different applications.
>>>>
>>>> Instead of using an arbitrary 12424 as the default starting point
>>>> it could be interesting to try with the first available port + 1;
>>>>
>>>> something like:
>>>>
>>>> final int startPort;
>>>> try (ServerSocket s = new ServerSocket(0)) {
>>>> startPort = s.getLocalPort() + 1;
>>>> }
>>>> System.out.println("startPort: "+startPort);
>>>>
>>>> But maybe that's what the test that calls the code is already doing?
>>>
>>> Nope, it's hardcoded.
>>>
>>> I've added the cap for the number of consecutive checks for a port being
>>> available and dynamic lookup of the first available port (if it's not
>>> specified by the system property "rmi.port").
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8027058/webrev.01
>>>
>>> Thanks for the additional ideas!
>>>
>>> -JB-
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- daniel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -JB-
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- daniel
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/23/13 5:16 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>>>>>>> Please, review the following test change:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8027058
>>>>>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8027058/webrev.00
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The test fails when the requested port is unavailable. The test logic
>>>>>>> already runs the subtests with different port numbers (increasing the
>>>>>>> port number for each subtest) and this patch adds the logic to
>>>>>>> increase
>>>>>>> the port number in case of the subtest failure caused by
>>>>>>> BindException.
>>>>>>> This way the test is able to "autodiscover" free ports and run the
>>>>>>> bootstrap subtests successfully.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -JB-
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
