On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 07:31:47 GMT, Jaikiran Pai <j...@openjdk.org> 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` interface and instead 
> should be refering to the newer `java.net.StandardSocketOptions` class. The 
> commit in this PR updates such references. This change intentionally doesn't 
> do any code changes to use the `StandardSocketOptions` class - that can be 
> done separately if desired at a later point (after testing for any 
> compatibility issues). Finally, there are a few places in ServerSocket and 
> Socket documentation which will continue to refer to java.net.SocketOptions 
> legacy interface because few of the options aren't available in 
> StandardSocketOptions class (for example, `SO_TIMEOUT`).
> 
> I ran `make docs-image` locally with this change and the generated doc looks 
> OK to me.

src/java.base/share/classes/java/net/ServerSocket.java line 867:

> 865:      * setting of {@link StandardSocketOptions#SO_REUSEADDR 
> SO_REUSEADDR}.
> 866:      * <p>
> 867:      * The behaviour when {@link StandardSocketOptions#SO_REUSEADDR 
> SO_REUSEADDR} is

I suppose the main question here is whether the description really needs to 
link to SO_REUSEADDR five times, it seems a bit excessive. In cases like this I 
tend to just have the first usage link, others do it differently.

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18646#discussion_r1553379147

Reply via email to