On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 13:09:55 GMT, Alan Bateman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Jaikiran Pai has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Aleksei's review
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/net/InetAddress.java line 792:
>
>> 790: * {@linkplain InetAddressResolver resolver}.
>> 791: *
>> 792: * <p>The system-wide resolver will be used to do a reverse name
>> lookup of the IP address.
>
> The wording in this paragraph seems a bit different to getHostName and I
> think we should try to use the same terms in both methods if possible, e.g.
> getHostName talks about the "system configured resolver" where here it uses
> "system-wide resolve". We have have "used" vs. "performed". So maybe look at
> the methods again as I think we should be a bit more consistent with the
> wording if we can.
Hello Alan, except for a couple of places in `InetAddress` javadoc, the rest of
the javadoc (and code comments) in `InetAddress` use the term system-wide
resolver instead of system configured resolver. Furthermore, the
java.net.spi.InetAddressResolver itself uses the system-wide resolver term. So
I've now updated these two places in InetAddress to replace the use of "system
configured resolver" to "system-wide resolver".
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/net/InetAddress.java line 796:
>
>> 794: * service. In such cases, where the resolver isn't able to
>> determine the fully qualified
>> 795: * domain name, this method returns the {@linkplain
>> #getHostAddress() textual representation}
>> 796: * of the IP address.
>
> I think it would be better to say that the lookup can fail for many reasons
> that include the host not being registered with the name service.
>
> A suggestion for "In such cases .." is to say "f the resolve is unable to
> determine ...". I think that would be a bit easer to read.
That sounds good. I've updated the PR to use this suggestion.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15134#discussion_r1287206805
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15134#discussion_r1287207810
