cle.com
To: alan.bate...@oracle.com
Cc: mk...@cs.hut.fi, net-dev@openjdk.java.net
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2013 5:50:06 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: suggestions for improvement in java.net APIs
Alan,
Not sure what is real usecase for this requirements for ipv4.
For ipv6 it should be d
Alan,
Not sure what is real usecase for this requirements for ipv4.
For ipv6 it should be done by sendmsg() and msg_control.
-Dmitry
On 2013-05-06 11:28, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 05/05/2013 12:19, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
>> Alan,
>>
>> SO_BINDTODEVICE shouldn't be used in modern applications b
On 05/05/2013 12:19, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
Alan,
SO_BINDTODEVICE shouldn't be used in modern applications because it
causes more problems than solves.
e.g. prevents application from handling on-fly device changes.
The use-case is where an application wants to control the network or
source a
Hi,
On 05/05/2013 12:40 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 04/05/2013 13:22, Miika Komu wrote:
:
Multihoming bug
---
* R3.2: Server-side multihoming for UDP does not work properly. The
framework should use SO_BINDTODEVICE option or sendmsg()/recvmsg()
interfaces in a proper way.
Thanks fo
Alan,
SO_BINDTODEVICE shouldn't be used in modern applications because it
causes more problems than solves.
e.g. prevents application from handling on-fly device changes.
Also it requires root (or be more precise RAW_SOCKET) permission and is
not supported on some embedded platforms.
-Dmitry
On 04/05/2013 13:22, Miika Komu wrote:
:
Multihoming bug
---
* R3.2: Server-side multihoming for UDP does not work properly. The
framework should use SO_BINDTODEVICE option or sendmsg()/recvmsg()
interfaces in a proper way.
Thanks for sending the link to the survey.
On SO_BINDTODEV
Howdy,
we investigated the APIs of java.net (OpenJDK Build b147) and published
our findings in Ottawa Linux Symposium 2012:
http://nw.dreamhosters.com/ols/ols2012/ols2012-komu.pdf
We two types of improvements to java.net disclosed in full detail in
section 4.3.1 of the publication. First, we sug
