Hi Chris,

> > I’ve got a question regarding AF_INET6.
> >
> > In jdk native code you’ll still find lots of code guarded by  “#ifdef 
> > AF_INET6”.
> I’m wondering if there are still supported build environments where AF_INET6
> is not defined. Or is it time now to assume AF_INET6 and remove this guarding?
> Here at SAP we don’t support non AF_INET6 build environments for quite a long
> time already. But probably there are scenarios out in the Java world where 
> only
> IPv4 builds are done??
> >
> > Maybe you can shed some light on this and/or give your opinion?
> A while back we did consider removing #ifdef AF_INET6, so that the
> code could be cleaned up and made more readable, but we never got
> around to it ( it was just lower priority than other tasks ).  I do remember
> fixing, or sponsoring, a change in the last year or so, where an #ifdef
> AF_INET6 was missing, that make me think that it was good that we
> did not remove these ( i.e. the person that filed the bug had a good
> use-case for building without IPv6 support ). I’ll see if I can jog my
> memory by looking through history.

Ok, it would really be great if you could find more information about that case 
where #ifdef AF_INET6 was missing and it lead to problems.

But if nobody really does IPv4 only builds and tests the results, I doubt that 
the IPv4 only scenario would work or even build. Then I think it was likely 
that somehow unguarded IPv6 code sneaks in or has already done so...

In case it can be removed it would really make the code more readable in 
several places. So, as I'm still doing cleanups, I could also take care of 
removing those #ifdefs at the places where I'm going. Just let me know.


Reply via email to