On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 18:12:39 GMT, Alan Bateman <al...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Volkan Yazıcı has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional 
>> commits since the last revision:
>> 
>>  - Replace `UnknownHostException exception` with `var uhe`
>>  - Fix `connect()` Javadoc on `UHE` results in socket close
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/net/Socket.java line 637:
> 
>> 635:      *          is already connected or the socket is closed
>> 636:      * @throws  UnknownHostException if the endpoint is an unresolved
>> 637:      *          {@link InetSocketAddress}
> 
> It looks like you deleted the throws SocketTimeoutException by mistake.

Restored in 7d96bffcb8a93f3730d30f6d0d2edb49d701f465. (I misread what you meant 
[in this 
comment](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/22160#discussion_r1849829296), and 
hence removed.)

> src/java.base/share/classes/java/net/Socket.java line 1607:
> 
>> 1605:         } catch (IOException exception) {
>> 1606:             if (exception != parentException) {
>> 1607:                 parentException.addSuppressed(exception);
> 
> I don't think you need the identity check, close would be very broken if it 
> threw the enclosing exception.

Removed in 385d6b24500ff76d8aa4395dc9c8bbbdadb68ec1. (That improvement was 
suggested by @jaikiran.)

> src/java.base/share/classes/sun/nio/ch/NioSocketImpl.java line 567:
> 
>> 565:         InetSocketAddress isa = (InetSocketAddress) remote;
>> 566:         if (isa.isUnresolved()) {
>> 567:             throw new UnknownHostException("Unresolved address: " + 
>> isa.getHostName());
> 
> The changes means this change isn't needed now. I'm really tempted to say we 
> change the unsupported address type to throw UOE, and the unresolved case to 
> throw IAE, but don't have the complicated this PR any more, plus the 
> SocketImpl API is hugely under specified so might result in more discussion 
> that is worth it.

Reverted in d3568d16cd227940d9254bc4212f332f89243bc2.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22160#discussion_r1851574153
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22160#discussion_r1851573979
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22160#discussion_r1851573877

Reply via email to