On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 10:38:21 GMT, Alan Bateman <al...@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. Hello Alan, I too typically follow the process of linking once and then using `{@code SO_REUSEADDR}`. I let it stay in this form since it was already that way. I'll go ahead and update it to link only once. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18646#discussion_r1553462959