Can I please get a review of this doc-only change which proposes to clean up
the documentation of `java.net.SocketOptions` interface?
As noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329733, the existing
documentation in this legacy interface isn't accurate. The commit in this PR,
updates the d
Can I please get a review of this doc-only changes to java.net.ServerSocket and
java.net.Socket classes?
As noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329745, these classes
currently refer to the legacy `java.net.SocketOptions` interface and instead
should be refering to the newer `java.net.
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 06:56:06 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this doc-only change which proposes to clean up
> the documentation of `java.net.SocketOptions` interface?
>
> As noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329733, the existing
> documentation in this legac
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 06:56:06 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this doc-only change which proposes to clean up
> the documentation of `java.net.SocketOptions` interface?
>
> As noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329733, the existing
> documentation in this legac
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 07:31:47 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this doc-only changes to java.net.ServerSocket
> and java.net.Socket classes?
>
> As noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329745, these classes
> currently refer to the legacy `java.net.SocketOptions`
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 10:38:21 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this doc-only changes to java.net.ServerSocket
>> and java.net.Socket classes?
>>
>> As noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329745, these classes
>> currently refer to the legacy `java.net.SocketOpti
> Can I please get a review of this doc-only change which proposes to clean up
> the documentation of `java.net.SocketOptions` interface?
>
> As noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329733, the existing
> documentation in this legacy interface isn't accurate. The commit in this PR,
> u
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 10:22:24 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Jaikiran Pai has updated the pull request incrementally with three
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - "timeout value" instead of "timeout"
>> - missed SO_TIMEOUT review suggestion in previous commit
>> - Alan's revie
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 11:29:14 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/net/ServerSocket.java line 867:
>>
>>> 865: * setting of {@link StandardSocketOptions#SO_REUSEADDR
>>> SO_REUSEADDR}.
>>> 866: *
>>> 867: * The behaviour when {@link StandardSocketOptions#SO
> Can I please get a review of this doc-only changes to java.net.ServerSocket
> and java.net.Socket classes?
>
> As noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329745, these classes
> currently refer to the legacy `java.net.SocketOptions` interface and instead
> should be refering to the newe
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 12:06:21 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this doc-only changes to java.net.ServerSocket
>> and java.net.Socket classes?
>>
>> As noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329745, these classes
>> currently refer to the legacy `java.net.SocketOpti
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 12:19:13 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Jaikiran Pai has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> remove repeated usages of {@link}
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/net/ServerSocket.java line 264:
>
>> 262: *
> Can I please get a review of this doc-only changes to java.net.ServerSocket
> and java.net.Socket classes?
>
> As noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329745, these classes
> currently refer to the legacy `java.net.SocketOptions` interface and instead
> should be refering to the newe
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 12:42:04 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/net/ServerSocket.java line 264:
>>
>>> 262: * 0 and 65535, inclusive.
>>> 263: *
>>> 264: * @see StandardSocketOptions
>>
>> What would you think about dropping this link, and the
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 11:50:32 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this test-only change which updates an existing
> test case to verify the behaviour of `HttpRequest.Builder.HEAD()` method?
>
> As noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329662, this test now
> verifies
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 11:50:32 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this test-only change which updates an existing
> test case to verify the behaviour of `HttpRequest.Builder.HEAD()` method?
>
> As noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329662, this test now
> verifies
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 11:50:32 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this test-only change which updates an existing
> test case to verify the behaviour of `HttpRequest.Builder.HEAD()` method?
>
> As noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329662, this test now
> verifies
Hi Daniel,
I think I have a solution that would work. I will try to get a PR together. Do
you know if there is an existing test case the demonstrates the issue? - if
not, I will start with that.
Robert
> On Apr 4, 2024, at 9:44 AM, Daniel Jeliński wrote:
>
> Hi Robert,
> Thanks for bringing
18 matches
Mail list logo
