Thanks, looks fine to me.
Roger
On 3/4/2015 10:53 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 04/03/15 15:26, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Chris,
Is the choice of 9999 as the ephemeral port ok?
It should be, or it could be any positive integer value.
Though it is artificial is there any chance it will be confused with a
real port?
There should be no confusion since the test is providing a custom
socket factory, and that factory knows about this "special" port number.
Would a negative number (or zero) work just as well for this purpose?
Or does it get rejected in one of the layers it has to pass through.
It gets rejected :-(
typo: "support listing on an ephemeral port"-> "support *listening* on
an ephemeral port"
Fixed.
-Chris.
Roger
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephemeral_port
On 3/4/2015 10:01 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
This is a small, test only, review request to fix an intermittently
failing test.
There is an inherent race, and possible failure, following the
getUnusedRandomPort pattern. This test can be modified to use a custom
socket factory, supporting listening on an ephemeral port, without
changing the behavior of the test.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8005226/webrev.00/webrev/
-Chris.
