Sebastian,
> On 10 Sep 2015, at 20:32, Sebastian Sickelmann <sebastian.sickelm...@gmx.de>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> first thanks to Chris and David for their helpful input . I looked through
> the existing
> Testcases and found one that is already testing for negative-port numbers.
> So i extended the @bug line with "4906983" which I hope is the right solution
> to do it.
It is.
> I am with Chris, when he says normally you only have numbers between 1 and
> 65535 (because many protocols are using tcp). So i changed to documentation
> as
> Chris suggested it.
Thanks.
> But ports above this "natural" barrier are valid too. It depends on the
> protocol what
> to do with the port information. So I also extended the testcase to check
> that their are
> valid port numbers also above 65535 and the special -1.
>
> But i asked myself should
> new URL("http://server:-1/path";);
> be realy a valid URL?
Probably not, but I think it is possibly too late to change this now.
> What do you think?
> Special thanks to David who hosted the new webrev:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dbuck/4906983.1/
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dbuck/4906983.1/>
I think these changes are good as is ( pending the outcome of the mail exchange
with Mark Sheppard ).
-Chris.
> -- Sebastian
>
>
> Am 10.09.2015 um 12:38 schrieb Chris Hegarty:
>> Another minor comment...
>>
>> While what you have suggested is not incorrect, I’m afraid it is giving the
>> wrong impression about the typical acceptable port ranges. A port of
>> Integer.MAX_VALUE is not all that useful, since it typically maps to a TCP
>> port number ( but not always ). Maybe just remove the valid values from
>> @param port, and add something like the following to MalformedURLException:
>> “.., or the port is a negative number other than -1” ?
>>
>> -Chris.
>>
>> On 10 Sep 2015, at 11:13, Chris Hegarty <chris.hega...@oracle.com>
>> <mailto:chris.hega...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8 Sep 2015, at 21:01, Sebastian Sickelmann <sebastian.sickelm...@gmx.de>
>>> <mailto:sebastian.sickelm...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Please find my small patch[1] to javadoc in java.net.URL that adresses
>>>> JDK-4906983(javadoc-fix)[2].
>>>>
>>>> I signed the SCA/OCA some time ago. Feel free to check at the OCA
>>>> Signatures-List[3]
>>>>
>>>> thanks to david buck for hosting this patch on cr.openjdk.java.net.
>>>>
>>>> -- Sebastian Sickelmann
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dbuck/4906983.0/
>>>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dbuck/4906983.0/>
>>> Just to confirm this is a spec only change, that documents long standing
>>> existing behaviour, right?
>>>
>>> I think we should add a minimal testcase to cover this.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Chris.
>>>
>>>> [2] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-4906983
>>>> <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-4906983>
>>>>
>>>> [3] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/community/oca-486395.html
>>>> <http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/community/oca-486395.html>
>>
>
