Re: Implementing a custom SocketImpl

On 20/03/2019 16:28, Lundell, Jared wrote: I have a use case where I need to implement a custom SocketImpl class and I've run into some difficulty caused by the current design of SocketImpl and the related classes in OpenJDK. My use case is implementing a custom proxy protocol, similar in spi

RFR [13] 8219446: Specify behaviour of timeout accepting methods of Socket and ServerSocket if timeout is negative

This review request is for a specification only change. It clarifies the behaviour of the timeout accepting methods of Socket and ServerSocket, when the given a negative timeout. A negative timeout value will result in an IllegalArgumentException being thrown. These methods already throw IllegalA

Re: RFR [13] 8219446: Specify behaviour of timeout accepting methods of Socket and ServerSocket if timeout is negative

On 22/03/2019 11:44, Chris Hegarty wrote: This review request is for a specification only change. It clarifies the behaviour of the timeout accepting methods of Socket and ServerSocket, when the given a negative timeout. A negative timeout value will result in an IllegalArgumentException being th

Re: RFR [13] 8219446: Specify behaviour of timeout accepting methods of Socket and ServerSocket if timeout is negative

On 22/03/2019 11:54, Alan Bateman wrote: ... Webrev:   http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8219446/webrev.00/ CSR:   https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8221248 This looks okay to me, I've added myself as Reviewer on the CSR. One small suggestion for the exception message is use "timeout

Re: RFR [13] 8219446: Specify behaviour of timeout accepting methods of Socket and ServerSocket if timeout is negative

Hi Chris, Looks like the right thing to do. +1 -- daniel On 22/03/2019 11:44, Chris Hegarty wrote: This review request is for a specification only change. It clarifies the behaviour of the timeout accepting methods of Socket and ServerSocket, when the given a negative timeout. A negative time

Re: Regarding 8220575: Correctly format test URI's that contain a retrieved IPv6 address

Arthur, > On 19 Mar 2019, at 15:31, Arthur Eubanks wrote: > > (Sorry for the late response, I keep getting sidetracked by other stuff) > > Is there a reason you're trying to deprecate the URL constructors? Yes, they are generally more error-prone than using URI, since they don’t encode illegal

Re: Regarding 8220575: Correctly format test URI's that contain a retrieved IPv6 address

Sounds good, I'll work on that. On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 10:02 AM Chris Hegarty wrote: > Arthur, > > > On 19 Mar 2019, at 15:31, Arthur Eubanks wrote: > > > > (Sorry for the late response, I keep getting sidetracked by other stuff) > > > > Is there a reason you're trying to deprecate the URL con

Re: Regarding 8220575: Correctly format test URI's that contain a retrieved IPv6 address

Arthur, > On 22 Mar 2019, at 17:07, Arthur Eubanks wrote: > > Sounds good, I'll work on that. > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 10:02 AM Chris Hegarty > wrote: > ... > Daniel has prototyped something > similar for the URI update investigation work. > Here is a lin