On 07/02/2023 20:06, DiCroce, Richard wrote:
:
I’d also like to get your thoughts on a possible second patch that
would be more extensive and might contain some functional changes. The
current code is a little messy and uses some ancient APIs. Some
initial experiments suggest that newer APIs (available since
Vista/Server 2008) would be faster. The current code also invents its
own interface naming scheme. Windows now has APIs for that (e.g.
ConvertInterfaceLuidToNameW), but switching to those would obviously
mean that getName() would return a different value than it does today.
getByName() would also need to be adjusted, but I could code it such
that it tries the Windows APIs first and then falls back to the
existing code, in order to minimize breakage. So, given those caveats,
do you think such a patch would have any chance of being accepted? Or
would any breaking changes be a no-go?
I think it would be good to use the Windows interface names. The reason
for the netNNN names is that there wasn't any Win32 APIs to get
interface names when this code was originally written for JDK 1.4. It
should have been re-visited a long time ago. That said, I think
NetworkInterface is a good candidate to re-implement completely in Java
using the Panama FFM API so that the existing JNI code can go away. As
always, the main issues are getting Reviewer cycles and testing to make
sure that there aren't any regressions in unusual configurations. So I
think start with the performance improvement at least.
-Alan
