On Apr 6, 2017, at 11:07 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>> On 6 Apr 2017, at 17:50, Michael McMahon
>> wrote:
>>
>> Looks fine to me Chris. Stylistically, the boolean tests
>> in line 104 could remove the == true obviously, but not a big deal.
>
> Thanks, I’ll make this change before pushing.
+1
> On 6 Apr 2017, at 17:50, Michael McMahon wrote:
>
> Looks fine to me Chris. Stylistically, the boolean tests
> in line 104 could remove the == true obviously, but not a big deal.
Thanks, I’ll make this change before pushing.
-Chris.
Looks fine to me Chris. Stylistically, the boolean tests
in line 104 could remove the == true obviously, but not a big deal.
Michael.
On 06/04/2017, 17:15, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Because of some peculiarities on Mac the original Mac port brought
some code that attempts to determine the default ne
Because of some peculiarities on Mac the original Mac port brought
some code that attempts to determine the default network interface
( on Mac only ). In all cases, on recent OS and hardware, it now finds
the Apple peer-to-peer interface, awdl0, which is almost always the
wrong answer. This is frag
On 06/04/2017 14:23, Pavel Rappo wrote:
Though it indeed jumps out on you. Could we use an iterator here and rely
on its remove implementation, since we know the implementation of the list?
We could - there's another loop earlier in this file that uses
an index (line 713) - so I just choose to
> On 6 Apr 2017, at 14:08, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>
> Return is needed here because 1. we are removing something from the
> list, so after that the next values of 'i' will be invalid, and 2.
Yeah, that would be my second question :-) But you explained the purpose,
so no problem here. Thanks.
Tho
On 06/04/2017 14:08, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
The only reason I touched this method is because I noticed the
possibility of ConcurrentModificationException if we reached there.
Well - now that I think about it again CME would probably not have
happened with the old code either since we broke out of
Hi Pavel,
Thanks for taking a look!
On 06/04/2017 13:28, Pavel Rappo wrote:
Heya Daniel,
750 /**
751 * same as above but for errors
752 */
753 void completeResponseExceptionally(Throwable t) {
754 synchronized (response_cfs) {
755 /
Heya Daniel,
750 /**
751 * same as above but for errors
752 */
753 void completeResponseExceptionally(Throwable t) {
754 synchronized (response_cfs) {
755 // use index to avoid ConcurrentModificationException
756 // caus
Hi,
While analyzing some of the later failure traces reported for
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8170940
8170940: test/java/net/httpclient/TimeoutOrdering.java
failing intermittently
I began to suspect that this was not caused by a test bug.
Looking at the timeout handling cod
10 matches
Mail list logo
