Michael, > On 21 Jun 2019, at 17:27, Michael McMahon <michael.x.mcma...@oracle.com> > wrote: > > On 21/06/2019, 12:32, Chris Hegarty wrote: >> ... >> >> With this change, the negative scenarios ( that are expected to >> timeout ), are susceptible to retrying when/if rogue packets are >> received ( I guess this is less likely now, since the groups are >> non-routable ). Would it be helpful to just print out the ignored >> packet / data ( in case of future reliability issues )? >> > Yeah, I'll add some logging for that eventuality. > >> There is a nio test, java/nio/channels/DatagramChannel/Promiscuous.java >> that follows a similar pattern. Should it be updated in a similar way? >> > I notice that test uses a "reserved" multicast address, which applications > are not supposed to use. Maybe, routers won't forward those packets either. > I think I'd prefer to leave that test as it is, for now, especially seeing as > it > hasn't failed.
Sure, no problem. > Updated at: > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/8219804/webrev.2/ Looks good. -Chris.
