Hi, Did anyone have a chance to look at this?
Thanks, Kurchi On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Kurchi Hazra < kurchi.subhra.ha...@oracle.com> wrote: > Hi Michael, > > I added some comments as to what is the purpose of the latches and > barriers. Those comments alongwith the > comments describing the purpose of the handlers should make the > synchronization logic more clear. Let me know what > you think: > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~**khazra/8017779/webrev.01/<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~khazra/8017779/webrev.01/> > > Thanks, > Kurchi > > On 7/17/2013 2:07 PM, Kurchi Hazra wrote: > >> >> On 7/17/2013 12:27 AM, Michael McMahon wrote: >> >>> On 16/07/13 20:11, Kurchi Hazra wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> We have observed that test/java/net/Authenticator/**B4769350.java >>>> fails intermittently. Although not reproducible always, >>>> the bug could be in the test/sun/net/www/httptest library that this >>>> test uses. I have rewritten the test to use >>>> com.sun.net.httpserver instead since we anyway want to move away from >>>> using the httptest library. >>>> >>>> I have used CyclicBarriers to mimic TestHttpServer.rendezvous() and >>>> CountDownLatches to >>>> mimic TestHttpServer.**waitForCondition() and hopefully preserved the >>>> rest of the logic in the test. >>>> I have not seen the test failing after these changes. >>>> >>>> Bug: >>>> http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.**do?bug_id=8017779<http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=8017779> >>>> Webrev: >>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~**khazra/8017779/webrev.00/<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~khazra/8017779/webrev.00/> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Kurchi >>>> >>>> >>> Kurchi, >>> >>> Since this is a fairly complicated test, and it's great to see it being >>> rewritten, >>> is there any possibility of adding some commentary that explains the >>> purpose >>> of the synchronization code. For instance, I can't see the purpose of >>> the call >>> on line 163 as it just blocks a thread that has already completed its >>> work >>> >>> Michael >>> >> >> Hi Michael, >> >> I have just preserved whatever logic the test originally had. The >> specific instance you point out waits >> for the T1b() handle to be executed for case 0 before moving forward. But >> I guess it is hard to understand in a >> glance and I'll add some more comments and get back with a new webrev. >> >> Thanks, >> Kurchi >> > > -- > -Kurchi > >
