On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 13:03:13 GMT, Jaikiran Pai <j...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Can I please get a review of this doc-only changes to java.net.ServerSocket 
>> and java.net.Socket classes?
>> 
>> As noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329745, these classes 
>> currently refer to the legacy `java.net.SocketOptions` interface and instead 
>> should be refering to the newer `java.net.StandardSocketOptions` class. The 
>> commit in this PR updates such references. This change intentionally doesn't 
>> do any code changes to use the `StandardSocketOptions` class - that can be 
>> done separately if desired at a later point (after testing for any 
>> compatibility issues). Finally, there are a few places in ServerSocket and 
>> Socket documentation which will continue to refer to java.net.SocketOptions 
>> legacy interface because few of the options aren't available in 
>> StandardSocketOptions class (for example, `SO_TIMEOUT`).
>> 
>> I ran `make docs-image` locally with this change and the generated doc looks 
>> OK to me.
>
> Jaikiran Pai has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional 
> commit since the last revision:
> 
>   remove some @see from constructors

src/java.base/share/classes/java/net/ServerSocket.java line 189:

> 187:      * factory, that {@linkplain SocketImplFactory#createSocketImpl()
> 188:      * factory's createSocketImpl method} is called to create
> 189:      * the actual socket implementation. Otherwise a system-default

I think this would be better if you link  "server socket implementation 
factory" to SocketImplFactory, and link "createSocketImpl" to the 
createSocketImpl method.

src/java.base/share/classes/java/net/Socket.java line 177:

> 175:      * If the application has specified a client socket implementation
> 176:      * factory, that {@linkplain SocketImplFactory#createSocketImpl()
> 177:      * factory's createSocketImpl method} is called to

Same comment as ServerSocket.

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18646#discussion_r1554553566
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18646#discussion_r1554553597

Reply via email to