Jaikiran,
The CSR was approved, and the change has been pushed.
Thanks for the contribution.
Michael.
On 22/08/2019, 17:19, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
On 22/08/19 8:17 PM, Michael McMahon wrote:
Getting back to this issue. I have filed a CSR at
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8230044
Looks fine to me.
- Michael.
On 29/08/2019, 16:01, Patrick Concannon wrote:
Hi,
Would it be possible to have my fix for JDK-8230132 reviewed?
java/net/NetworkInterface/NetworkInterfaceRetrievalTests.java was
failing intermittently on Windows due to random addresses being
returned from the
Looks fine to me.
- Michael.
On 29/08/2019, 18:04, Julia Boes wrote:
Hi,
This fix involves a test that failed during thread cleanup. To address
this, the ServerSocket is now being closed at the end and the server
thread is joined. While at it, I removed some unnecessary whitespace.
webrev:
Looks fine to me Daniel.
- Michael.
On 02/09/2019, 14:00, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Hi,
(cc-ing security dev for the changes in
test/jdk/javax/net/ssl/templates/SSLSocketTemplate.java
which is updated to allow for binding on a specific
IP Address)
Please find below a patch for:
8230435: Replace
Hi Franta,
I have filed https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8231358
to cover the general case of support for UNIX domain sockets.
I think we should fix this bug independent of that though.
The test case you supplied incl. native launcher was useful for this.
So, thanks for that.
The change
Hi,
Could I get the following small change reviewed please?
8233958 complains about memory retention caused by a finalizer which
does nothing, other than delay garbage collection of the associated objects.
The proposed change is to remove the dead code.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/823
Could I get the following two trivial test case fixes reviewed please?
They are both caused by a recent configuration change to Windows 10
where socket connect
requests are attempted four times, at 500ms intervals, on connection
refused errors,
which means that such connects will take around 2
Thanks Alan. Yes, I think it's reasonable to set a much larger timeout.
The actual delay experienced (annoying as it is) will still be only two
seconds.
I'll go ahead with that.
Michael.
On 03/12/2019 11:08, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 03/12/2019 09:59, Michael McMahon wrote:
:
823
Hi,
Could I get the following trivial fix reviewed please. It is included in
diff form below.
The problem was that a field "charset" was added as part of JDK-8199849,
but it was
made protected by mistake instead of private. The fix just makes it private.
There is no regression test for thi
Hi,
Could I get the following webrev reviewed please? The deprecation arises
from
the general deprecation of the Solaris port and the fact this is a
Solaris only feature.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/8234871/webrev.1/
Thanks,
Michael.
Hi,
I think I agree that the spec is not completely clear on this point.
While it doesn't explicitly say
that attributes are per-exchange, it does kind of imply that. My
preference would be to tighten
up the spec; make clear what is normative (the current behavior) and
distinguish from that
w
I'll fix this. Thanks for reporting and filing the bug.
- Michael.
On 16/12/2019 08:17, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 15/12/2019 16:52, Simone Bordet wrote:
Hi,
the Jetty integration with HttpServerProvider is failing a couple of
tests in JDK 14 (they pass in earlier JDKs).
This is due to the fact
Could I get the following small fix reviewed please?
It is a followup to 8199849 which is already in 14.
The fix did not include the required comma separator between parameters
in HTTP response authentication headers.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/8235976/webrev.1/
Thanks,
Michael.
The change looks okay to me. Though the comment about the -1 case also
applies
if timeout is 0. The behavior is still okay in that case, but the
comment should acknowledge that,
however unlikely it is to occur.
- Michael.
On 10/03/2020 16:37, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Hi Vyom,
I have sent your pro
As it happens, I'm not sure that NET_Timeout is ever called with timeout
= 0.
A zero value for the socket option means block forever and there is no
support
for polling in the API.
- Michael.
On 10/03/2020 18:21, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Hi Vyom,
Now I have second thoughts. The documentation of
Hi Alex,
(and redirecting the thread to net-dev)
It looks like a straight forward solution and perhaps the compatibility test
could be challenged on the basis of reliance on implementation behavior
rather than the spec.
But, more important I think is the behavior change of the fix itself and
Hi Xuelei,
I have some concerns about these bugs also, though not exactly the same
as yours:
The "jdk.tls.client.protocols" system property is not part of the HTTP
client API. So, it's not
clear to me why the HTTP client is expected to enforce it. It is equally
possible for any code using
SS
+1
Michael
On 02/04/2020 15:39, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Looks good to me Chris.
best regards,
-- daniel
On 02/04/2020 15:11, Chris Hegarty wrote:
To more easily write HTTP Client test scenarios for different protocol
versions and different TLS versions, it would be very convenient if the
HTTP/2
On 03/04/2020 21:39, mark sheppard wrote:
Hi Chris,
possible wording for your last paragraph:
To retrieve a string representation of the hostname, or in the
absence of a hostname, the string form of the address, use {@link
#getHostString()}, rather than parsing the toString string represent
om: net-dev on behalf of mark
sheppard
Sent: Wednesday 1 April 2020 16:03
To: Michael McMahon ; Alex Kashchenko
Cc: Mark Sheppard ;
net-dev@openjdk.java.net >> OpenJDK Network Dev list
Subject: Re: RFC: 8132359: JarURLConnection.getJarFile() resource
leak when file is not found
Hi
On 08/05/2020 17:34, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Hi Alex,
On 08/05/2020 15:35, Alex Kashchenko wrote:
On 05/06/2020 01:11 PM, Michael McMahon wrote:
Hi,
Yes, we've had some discussion about it internally, and while others
may
yet have an opinion, I think this approach is a reasonable one, wi
On 10/05/2020 21:51, Alex Kashchenko wrote:
Thanks for your comments!
On 05/08/2020 06:38 PM, Michael McMahon wrote:
[...]
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8244650
I believe some sort of spec change will be needed, if only to justify
challenging the JCK. Currently, the proposed
On 13/05/2020 15:07, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 8 May 2020, at 16:46, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Hi,
Please find a fix for:
8244031: HttpClient should have more tests for HEAD requests
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8244031
webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dfuchs/webrev_8244031/webrev.0
Hi Jay,
A couple of comments. There are other places in SocketPermission which
assume that the addresses array only contains one element, eg getCanonName()
assumes there is only one such name. The fix would have to account for
the possibility
of multiple canonical names (obtained from DNS rever
Hi,
Could I get the following small spec clarification reviewed please?
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8241378
CSR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8245582
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/8241378/webrev.1/index.html
Thanks,
Michael.
o.jp in the CNAME
record.
However in the A records the multiple IPs of www.yahoo.jp can be assigned to
the CNAME
I hope, i understood your point and have answered it right.
2. It might be better to build a test using the internal files based name
service
Sure Michael, I have started workin
Hi,
Could I get the following fix reviewed please? It is related
to the issue reviewed earlier, but requires a code change
instead of a spec update.
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8241389
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/8241389/webrev.1/index.html
Thanks,
Michael.
aderFields == null) {
return super.getHeaderFields();
} else {
return headerFields;
}
127 }
And maybe add a test case to check that getHeaderFields() returns
an empty map if getInputStream() throws...
best regards,
-- daniel
On 22/05/2
();
128 }
I'm not sure that's correct. Could a second attempt to connect()
succeed later? If so it would be more correct to return
super.getHeaderFields() without setting the new field value.
best regards,
-- daniel
On 22/05/2020 16:18, Michael McMahon wrote:
Thanks for th
Hi Daniel,
This looks like good work. A couple of points/questions:
- commented code in RequestPublishers.java can be deleted presumably
- RequestPublishers.IterablePublisher :: computeLength(). What is the
reason for returning -1
here instead of the computed length.
- why does Stream.reg
y and exercise
different code paths depending on when exactly it happens?
Michael.
On 23/07/2020 19:13, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Hi Michael,
On 23/07/2020 18:48, Michael McMahon wrote:
Hi Daniel,
This looks like good work. A couple of points/questions:
- commented code in RequestPublishers.java c
On 27/07/2020 17:24, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Hi Michael,
On 24/07/2020 16:38, Michael McMahon wrote:
Daniel,
That's all fine. Concerning the test, I think the approach looks good,
but I wonder if instead of just synchronizing on the CFs to make
the cancel happen at the same time always,
et/~dfuchs/webrev_8245462/webrev.01/index.html
best regards,
-- daniel
On 28/07/2020 15:19, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
On 28/07/2020 15:04, Michael McMahon wrote:
The code is technically racy on the GET test, but it's often the
case when you want
something to be racy then it turns out not to be in practice
jdk.java.net/~dfuchs/webrev_8245462/webrev.01/index.html
best regards,
-- daniel
On 28/07/2020 15:19, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
On 28/07/2020 15:04, Michael McMahon wrote:
The code is technically racy on the GET test, but it's often the
case when you want
something to be racy then it turns out
On 28/08/2020 09:54, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Hi Michael,
On 28/08/2020 09:46, Michael McMahon wrote:
Daniel,
I wonder if the new Cancelable interface could be simplified to
remove the "mayInterruptIfRunning" parameter? It seems like the
cancellation operation has no effect if the pa
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 11:04:35 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review and a sponsor for a fix for the issue reported at
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8252767?
>> As noted in that issue, the `sun.net.www.URLConnection#setRequestProperty`
>> is throwing a `IllegalAccessEr
Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below incorporated.
I expect there will be a few more
iterations before integrating.
On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>
>> As I mentioned the other day, I wasn&#x
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below
> incorporated. I expect there will be a few more
> iterations before integrating.
> On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>>
>>> As I menti
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 12:05:07 GMT, Michael McMahon wrote:
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below
> incorporated. I expect there will be a few more
> iterations before integrating.
> On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Mic
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below
> incorporated. I expect there will be a few more
> iterations before integrating.
> On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>>
>>> As I menti
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below
> incorporated. I expect there will be a few more
> iterations before integrating.
> On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>>
>>> As I menti
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below
> incorporated. I expect there will be a few more
> iterations before integrating.
> On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>>
>>> As I menti
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below
> incorporated. I expect there will be a few more
> iterations before integrating.
> On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>>
>>> As I menti
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below
> incorporated. I expect there will be a few more
> iterations before integrating.
> On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>>
>>> As I menti
On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 10:11:24 GMT, Michael McMahon wrote:
>> Patrick Concannon has updated the pull request with a new target base due to
>> a merge or a rebase. The pull request now
>> contains four commits:
>> - 8253053: removed trailing
>> - 8253053: fixed t
On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 09:23:55 GMT, Patrick Concannon
wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Could someone please review my doc-only fix for JDK-8253053 - 'Javadoc clean
>> up in Authenticator and BasicAuthenicator'
>> ?
>> This fix is set of formatting changes intended to clean up the javadoc of
>> the following
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 14:41:32 GMT, Michael McMahon wrote:
>> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below
>> incorporated. I expect there will be a few more
>> iterations before integrating.
>> On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
>>> On
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below
> incorporated. I expect there will be a few more
> iterations before integrating.
> On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>>
>>> As I menti
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below
> incorporated. I expect there will be a few more
> iterations before integrating.
> On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>>
>>> As I menti
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below
> incorporated. I expect there will be a few more
> iterations before integrating.
> On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>>
>>> As I menti
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below
> incorporated. I expect there will be a few more
> iterations before integrating.
> On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>>
>>> As I menti
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 10:02:06 GMT, Patrick Concannon
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could someone please review my doc-only fix for JDK-8253470 - 'Javadoc clean
> up in Filter and Headers' ?
>
> This fix is set of formatting changes intended to clean up the javadoc of the
> following classes :
>
> `com.su
On Thu, 1 Oct 2020 12:03:04 GMT, Patrick Concannon
wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Could someone please review my doc-only fix for JDK-8253470 - 'Javadoc clean
>> up in Filter and Headers' ?
>>
>> This fix is set of formatting changes intended to clean up the javadoc of
>> the following classes :
>>
>>
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below
> incorporated. I expect there will be a few more
> iterations before integrating.
> On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>>
>>> As I menti
On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 08:52:53 GMT, Patrick Concannon
wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Could someone please review my doc-only fix for JDK-8253470 - 'Javadoc clean
>> up in Filter and Headers' ?
>>
>> This fix is set of formatting changes intended to clean up the javadoc of
>> the following classes :
>>
>>
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below
> incorporated. I expect there will be a few more
> iterations before integrating.
> On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>>
>>> As I menti
On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 12:58:02 GMT, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>> Michael McMahon has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> unixdomainchannels: error in the last commit in
>> make/modules/java.base/Copy.
On Sun, 4 Oct 2020 08:27:39 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Good points. I will update as suggested. Thanks.
>
> I would prefer if we didn't rename net.properties. Can we use the same
> approach as lib/security/default.policy where
> the share and platform specific are concatenated?
Okay, I have ju
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below
> incorporated. I expect there will be a few more
> iterations before integrating.
> On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>>
>>> As I menti
On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 12:58:52 GMT, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>> Michael McMahon has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> - simplified Copy.gmk to CAT source files directly
>> - renamed net.pro
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below
> incorporated. I expect there will be a few more
> iterations before integrating.
> On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>>
>>> As I menti
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below
> incorporated. I expect there will be a few more
> iterations before integrating.
> On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>>
>>> As I menti
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below
> incorporated. I expect there will be a few more
> iterations before integrating.
> On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>>
>>> As I menti
On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 09:17:48 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/sun/net/www/MeteredStream.java line 123:
>>
>>> 121: lock();
>>> 122: try {
>>> 123: if (closed) return -1;
>>
>> This double check of `closed` is kind of irritating. Is it really nee
On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 09:14:33 GMT, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>> Michael McMahon has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> unixdomainchannels:
>> - updated property name
>> - added JFR unit
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below
> incorporated. I expect there will be a few more
> iterations before integrating.
> On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>>
>>> As I menti
On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 15:09:53 GMT, Michael McMahon wrote:
>> Build changes look good.
>
> Thanks again Alan. Assume where there is no comment from me below that
> suggestions are accepted:
> I will push an update based on these changes soon.
>
> Michael.
>
>>
On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:50:30 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is a fix that upgrades the old HTTP and HTTPS legacy stack to use
>> virtual-thread friendly locking instead of
>> synchronized monitors.
>> Most of the changes are mechanical - but there are still a numbers of subtle
>> n
On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 11:02:12 GMT, Michael McMahon wrote:
>> Thanks again Alan. Assume where there is no comment from me below that
>> suggestions are accepted:
>> I will push an update based on these changes soon.
>>
>> Michael.
>>
>>
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below
> incorporated. I expect there will be a few more
> iterations before integrating.
> On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>>
>>> As I menti
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below
> incorporated. I expect there will be a few more
> iterations before integrating.
> On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>>
>>> As I menti
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 11:04:08 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Michael McMahon has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev
>> excludes the unrelated changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull
>> reques
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 15:50:57 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Michael McMahon has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> unixdomainchannels: updates from Chris's review 9 Oct 2020
>
> s
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 11:37:09 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Michael McMahon has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev
>> excludes the unrelated changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull
>> reques
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 13:17:01 GMT, Michael McMahon wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/sun/net/ext/ExtendedSocketOptions.java line 63:
>>
>>> 61: /** Return the, possibly empty, set of extended socket options
>>> available. */
>>> 62: p
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 11:19:59 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Michael McMahon has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev
>> excludes the unrelated changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull
>> reques
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 12:24:11 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Michael McMahon has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev
>> excludes the unrelated changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull
>> reques
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 12:28:04 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Michael McMahon has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev
>> excludes the unrelated changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull
>> reques
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 13:56:42 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Michael McMahon has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev
>> excludes the unrelated changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull
>> reques
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below
> incorporated. I expect there will be a few more
> iterations before integrating.
> On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>>
>>> As I menti
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 14:14:48 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Michael McMahon has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev
>> excludes the unrelated changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull
>> reques
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 14:21:13 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Michael McMahon has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev
>> excludes the unrelated changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull
>> reques
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below
> incorporated. I expect there will be a few more
> iterations before integrating.
> On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>>
>>> As I menti
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below
> incorporated. I expect there will be a few more
> iterations before integrating.
> On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>>
>>> As I menti
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below
> incorporated. I expect there will be a few more
> iterations before integrating.
> On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>>
>>> As I menti
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 18:37:57 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Michael McMahon has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> fix white space error
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/sun/nio/ch/SocketChanne
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below
> incorporated. I expect there will be a few more
> iterations before integrating.
> On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>>
>>> As I menti
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below
> incorporated. I expect there will be a few more
> iterations before integrating.
> On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>>
>>> As I menti
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below
> incorporated. I expect there will be a few more
> iterations before integrating.
> On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>>
>>> As I menti
This fixes a busy loop bug in the Http server which happens sometimes when an
SSL connection is closed by the client.
There is no regression test as it is not easy to reproduce and the only effect
is that one executor thread gets tied up.
-
Commit messages:
- 8254967: com.sun.net.
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 15:33:25 GMT, Patrick Concannon
wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Could someone please review my doc-only fix for JDK-8253474: 'Javadoc clean
>> up in HttpsExchange, HttpsParameters, and
>> HttpsServer' ?
>> This fix is set of formatting changes intended to clean up the javadoc of
>> th
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 15:50:32 GMT, Michael McMahon wrote:
> This fixes a busy loop bug in the Http server which happens sometimes when an
> SSL connection is closed by the client.
>
> There is no regression test as it is not easy to reproduce and the only
> effect is that one
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 17:36:25 GMT, Patrick Concannon
wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Could someone please review my doc-only fix for JDK-8253474: 'Javadoc clean
>> up in HttpsExchange, HttpsParameters, and
>> HttpsServer' ?
>> This fix is set of formatting changes intended to clean up the javadoc of
>> th
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below
> incorporated. I expect there will be a few more
> iterations before integrating.
> On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>>
>>> As I menti
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below
> incorporated. I expect there will be a few more
> iterations before integrating.
> On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>>
>>> As I menti
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 10:28:13 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Michael McMahon has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> final feedback from Alan
>
> test/jdk/java/nio/channels/unixdomain/NonBlockin
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 10:36:24 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Michael McMahon has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> final feedback from Alan
>
> test/jdk/java/nio/channels/unixdomain/Socket
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below
> incorporated. I expect there will be a few more
> iterations before integrating.
> On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>>
>>> As I menti
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below
> incorporated. I expect there will be a few more
> iterations before integrating.
> On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>>
>>> As I menti
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 13:59:23 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Michael McMahon has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> forgot to stage updated test files in last commit
>
> test/jdk/java/net/UnixDomain
401 - 500 of 1041 matches
Mail list logo
