On 6/25/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew Zhang wrote: > On 6/23/06, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Andrew Zhang wrote: >> > Hi Alexander, >> > >> > Thanks for your kind reminder. >> > >> > Certainly I'll use sth. like Support_PortManager.getNextPort() to avoid >> > such >> > port conflict issue. >> >> No, please! Don't perpetuate that abomination<g>! Alexander is right, >> you should bind to port 0 and let the OS assign one. > > > Yes, I agree that getNextPort doesn't really get the next free port, and > bind to port 0 is the right way. > > But if I remembered clearly, in Jetty based tests thread, someone objected > automatically select port. > "> What's the problem if the port is selected automatically? > > Repeatability. IMO, there should be no random elements in our testing. > That leads to frustration, fear, despair, pathos, pain, agony, angst and > much pulling of limited resources, like hair, in my case." That was me, and that was to ensure repeatability :) Of course, I had a slightly different notion of a test in mind, not one where the same thread is both the client and server. In fact, what I was imagining was that the server and client were in separate VMs at least, and separate machines too.
Great Geir! If no one objects, I'm going to fix those "getNextPort()" codes in LUNI/NIO module. geir
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Andrew Zhang China Software Development Lab, IBM
