Re: RFR: JDK-4906983

Another minor comment... While what you have suggested is not incorrect, I’m afraid it is giving the wrong impression about the typical acceptable port ranges. A port of Integer.MAX_VALUE is not all that useful, since it typically maps to a TCP port number ( but not always ). Maybe just remove

Re: RFR: JDK-4906983

On 8 Sep 2015, at 21:01, Sebastian Sickelmann wrote: > Hi, > > Please find my small patch[1] to javadoc in java.net.URL that adresses > JDK-4906983(javadoc-fix)[2]. > > I signed the SCA/OCA some time ago. Feel free to check at the OCA > Signatures-List[3] > >

Re: [8u-dev] Request for review and for approval to backport: 8072466: Deadlock when initializing MulticastSocket and DatagramSocket

These changes look fine to me Ivan. Approved for jdk8u-dev. Regards, Sean. On 09/09/2015 17:39, Ivan Gerasimov wrote: Hello! I'd like to backport this recent fix from jdk9 to jdk8u-dev. The fix applies *almost* cleanly after unshuffling. The only manual editing I had to do was creating

Re: WebSocket client API

Hi gents, I finally got around to looking a bit over the websocket client API proposal and have a few API feedback thoughts/suggestions. Thanks a lot for implementing this by the way - I can see that it would be a useful API for many people. 1. Consistency. It feels a bit inconsistent that the

Re: RFR 4906983: java.net.URL constructors throw MalformedURLException in undocumented way

Hi, first thanks to Chris and David for their helpful input . I looked through the existing Testcases and found one that is already testing for negative-port numbers. So i extended the @bug line with "4906983" which I hope is the right solution to do it. I am with Chris, when he says normally