sure, i will send the webrev soon.
Vyom
On Wednesday 17 October 2018 04:31 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 12/10/18 12:58, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
...
int available = impl.available();
return eof ? 0 : available;
addresses the issue of available potentially returning garbage
after EOF wh
On 12/10/18 12:58, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
...
int available = impl.available();
return eof ? 0 : available;
addresses the issue of available potentially returning garbage
after EOF while being much less risky...
Agreed.
The above resolves the original reported potential bug,
without c
On 12/10/2018 14:43, David Lloyd wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 6:01 AM Chris Hegarty wrote:
That is correct. While not intuitive, I don't propose
that we change this. ( if this were a new implementation
then I think it should throw IOE for this scenario, but
we are where we are ).
I am glad t
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 6:01 AM Chris Hegarty wrote:
> That is correct. While not intuitive, I don't propose
> that we change this. ( if this were a new implementation
> then I think it should throw IOE for this scenario, but
> we are where we are ).
I am glad then that it is not a new implementa
On 12/10/2018 12:01, Chris Hegarty wrote:
That buys us little more than we had prior to this change,
since impl.available will still call into native before
checking the EOF status.
If we want to keep this, then we need:
public int available() throws IOException {
if (impl.isClose
On Friday 12 October 2018 04:31 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Daniel,
On 12/10/18 11:26, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Hi,
Maybe a more conservative implementation could have been:
int available = impl.available();
return eof ? 0 : available;
That buys us little more than we had prior to this c
Daniel,
On 12/10/18 11:26, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Hi,
Maybe a more conservative implementation could have been:
int available = impl.available();
return eof ? 0 : available;
That buys us little more than we had prior to this change,
since impl.available will still call into native befor
Hi,
Maybe a more conservative implementation could have been:
int available = impl.available();
return eof ? 0 : available;
I almost suggested that yesterday, but I saw that
read() already had a logic similar to what Vyom was
proposing for available:
146 // EOF already encounter
On 12/10/18 08:29, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 11/10/2018 09:03, vyom tewari wrote:
Hi Chris,
Thanks for review, please find the updated
webrev(http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vtewari/8189366/webrev0.1/index.html)
where i included the test.
Can you explain the behavior change for the closed socket c
On 11/10/2018 09:03, vyom tewari wrote:
Hi Chris,
Thanks for review, please find the updated
webrev(http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vtewari/8189366/webrev0.1/index.html)
where i included the test.
Can you explain the behavior change for the closed socket case? Will
this change mean that available
> On 11 Oct 2018, at 09:03, vyom tewari wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> Thanks for review, please find the updated
> webrev(http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vtewari/8189366/webrev0.1/index.html)
> where i included the test.
Thanks. I think this is good.
-Chris.
Hi Chris,
Thanks for review, please find the updated
webrev(http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vtewari/8189366/webrev0.1/index.html)
where i included the test.
Thanks,
Vyom
On Wednesday 10 October 2018 09:50 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Vyom,
On 10/10/18 14:16, vyom tewari wrote:
Hi All,
Please p
Vyom,
On 10/10/18 14:16, vyom tewari wrote:
Hi All,
Please provide your review comments on below fix.
Thanks,
Vyom
On Friday 27 October 2017 11:31 AM, vyom tewari wrote:
Wow, is it really almost a year since this was first
discussed!
...
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vtewari/8189366/webr
* net-dev on behalf of vyom
tewari
*Sent:* Thursday, October 26, 2017 11:26:15 AM
*To:* OpenJDK Network Dev list
*Subject:* RFR: 8189366: SocketInputStream.available() should check
for eof
Hi All,
Please review the simple change below.
Webrev :
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vtewari/81
might never detect that it reached
EOF.
Gruss
Bernd
--
http://bernd.eckenfels.net
*From:* net-dev on behalf of vyom
tewari
*Sent:* Thursday, October 26, 2017 11:26:15 AM
*To:* OpenJDK Network Dev list
*Subject:* RFR: 8
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> What is currently returned at the end of a stream? This looks like a
> dangerous thing to do, if a existing implementation only read when something
> is available it might never detect that it reached EOF.
At present it ultimately delegate
Any change that fiddles with "available" is never simple!
I confess to not understanding sockets, but intuitively they differ from
files in that eof is a murky concept - there may not be any data from the
other end of the socket right now, but who knows what's coming soon?
What's the difference be
behalf of vyom tewari
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 11:26:15 AM
To: OpenJDK Network Dev list
Subject: RFR: 8189366: SocketInputStream.available() should check for eof
Hi All,
Please review the simple change below.
Webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vtewari/8189366/webrev0.0/index.html
Hi All,
Please review the simple change below.
Webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vtewari/8189366/webrev0.0/index.html
BugId : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8189366
Currently SocketInputStream.available() does not check for "eof" and
simply delegate to the impl even when
19 matches
Mail list logo
