Re: RFR: JDK-8134577 - Eliminate or standardize a replacement for sun.net.spi.nameservice.NameServiceDescriptor

On 18/03/2016 11:17, Chris Hegarty wrote: Hi Mark, This mainly looks good. Some specific comments on InetAddress. - Why did you add transient to this field? private static TRANSIENT NameService nameService = null; - There will be support for IPv6, right? There is a comment in t

Re: RFR 8151586: Wrong exception catch for FTPClient in JDK-8055032

On 17 Mar 2016, at 06:57, vyom wrote: > > Hi Chris, > > thanks for review, please find the updated webrev. I updated the existing > test case to cover this issue. > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vtewari/8151586/webrev0.1/index.html >

Re: RFR 7167293:FtpURLConnection connection leak on FileNotFoundException

please find the updated webrev(http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vtewari/7167293/webrev0.1/index.html ). Thanks, Vyom On Tuesday 15 March 2016 05:11 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote: Vyom, On 15/03/16 10:00, vyom wrote: Hi, Please review

Re: RFR: JDK-8134577 - Eliminate or standardize a replacement for sun.net.spi.nameservice.NameServiceDescriptor

Hi Chris, thanks for the feedback, I'll make the appropriate amendments regards Mark On 18/03/2016 11:17, Chris Hegarty wrote: Hi Mark, This mainly looks good. Some specific comments on InetAddress. - Why did you add transient to this field? private static TRANSIENT NameService nameS

Re: RFR 8151586: Wrong exception catch for FTPClient in JDK-8055032

On Thursday 17 March 2016 02:17 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote: On 17 Mar 2016, at 06:57, vyom wrote: Hi Chris, thanks for review, please find the updated webrev. I updated the existing test case to cover this issue. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vtewari/8151586/webrev0.1/index.html

Re: RFR: JDK-8134577 - Eliminate or standardize a replacement for sun.net.spi.nameservice.NameServiceDescriptor

Hi Mark, This mainly looks good. Some specific comments on InetAddress. - Why did you add transient to this field? private static TRANSIENT NameService nameService = null; - There will be support for IPv6, right? There is a comment in the code that says otherwise. - jdk.net.hos