Could I get the following small change reviewed please?
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/8062744/webrev.1/
In JDK 9 the problem only affects the Socket.supportedOptions() method,
but the same change is needed in 8 to allow the IP_TOS option to be set
in a ServerSocket.
Thanks
Michael
On 04/11/2014 10:44, Michael McMahon wrote:
Could I get the following small change reviewed please?
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/8062744/webrev.1/
In JDK 9 the problem only affects the Socket.supportedOptions() method,
but the same change is needed in 8 to allow the IP_TOS option to be
On 04/11/14 10:51, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 04/11/2014 10:44, Michael McMahon wrote:
Could I get the following small change reviewed please?
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/8062744/webrev.1/
In JDK 9 the problem only affects the Socket.supportedOptions() method,
but the same change is neede
On 04/11/2014 11:00, Michael McMahon wrote:
Thanks Alan. How about I just split the test and check the option
setting behavior in OptionsTest.java
which doesn't have any reference to the jdk.net.Sockets APIs and then
check the Sockets.supportedOptions()
method in the new test?
That sounds oka
On 04/11/14 11:10, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 04/11/2014 11:00, Michael McMahon wrote:
Thanks Alan. How about I just split the test and check the option
setting behavior in OptionsTest.java
which doesn't have any reference to the jdk.net.Sockets APIs and then
check the Sockets.supportedOptions()
On 4 Nov 2014, at 10:51, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 04/11/2014 10:44, Michael McMahon wrote:
>> Could I get the following small change reviewed please?
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/8062744/webrev.1/
>>
>> In JDK 9 the problem only affects the Socket.supportedOptions() method,
>> bu
On 4 Nov 2014, at 11:15, Michael McMahon wrote:
> On 04/11/14 11:10, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 04/11/2014 11:00, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Alan. How about I just split the test and check the option setting
>>> behavior in OptionsTest.java
>>> which doesn't have any reference to the
On 04/11/14 11:18, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 4 Nov 2014, at 11:15, Michael McMahon wrote:
On 04/11/14 11:10, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 04/11/2014 11:00, Michael McMahon wrote:
Thanks Alan. How about I just split the test and check the option setting
behavior in OptionsTest.java
which doesn't hav
On 4 Nov 2014, at 12:05, Michael McMahon wrote:
> On 04/11/14 11:18, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>> On 4 Nov 2014, at 11:15, Michael McMahon
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/11/14 11:10, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 04/11/2014 11:00, Michael McMahon wrote:
> Thanks Alan. How about I just split the test and
On 04/11/14 12:49, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 4 Nov 2014, at 12:05, Michael McMahon wrote:
On 04/11/14 11:18, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 4 Nov 2014, at 11:15, Michael McMahon wrote:
On 04/11/14 11:10, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 04/11/2014 11:00, Michael McMahon wrote:
Thanks Alan. How about I just
On 04/11/2014 14:45, Michael McMahon wrote:
Right. Good catch. I've updated the webrev including the test to catch
the above.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/8062744/webrev.2/
The updated webrev looks okay, pity we can't reliably test the IP_TOS value.
-Alan.
On 04/11/14 14:45, Michael McMahon wrote:
On 04/11/14 12:49, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 4 Nov 2014, at 12:05, Michael McMahon
wrote:
On 04/11/14 11:18, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 4 Nov 2014, at 11:15, Michael McMahon
wrote:
On 04/11/14 11:10, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 04/11/2014 11:00, Michael
On 4 Nov 2014, at 16:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
> On 04/11/14 14:45, Michael McMahon wrote:
>> On 04/11/14 12:49, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>>> On 4 Nov 2014, at 12:05, Michael McMahon
>>> wrote:
>>>
On 04/11/14 11:18, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> On 4 Nov 2014, at 11:15, Michael McMahon
13 matches
Mail list logo
