On 13/02/2014 15:04, Florian Weimer wrote:
Naming is fundamentally different. With that caveat, it would be
possible to expose a socket-based interface, but application code
would have to adhere to the platform naming convention.
When we prototyped this in the past then we used a new Socket
On 02/13/2014 03:23 PM, David M. Lloyd wrote:
Okay, sounds reasonable. The PF_LOCAL protocol family is not available
with Winsock, so I guess it will have to be a separate enum then, with a
single member, although OpenJDK already requires PF_LOCAL support on the
non-Windows platforms.
Windows
On 02/13/2014 07:33 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 02/13/2014 02:21 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 13/02/2014 12:54, Florian Weimer wrote:
Can we add further enumeration values to
java.net.StandardProtocolFamily? The spec does not say so, unlike
javax.lang.model.SourceVersion, and the code in the JD
On 02/13/2014 02:21 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 13/02/2014 12:54, Florian Weimer wrote:
Can we add further enumeration values to
java.net.StandardProtocolFamily? The spec does not say so, unlike
javax.lang.model.SourceVersion, and the code in the JDK expects a
binary flag, so I think the answer
On 13/02/2014 12:54, Florian Weimer wrote:
Can we add further enumeration values to
java.net.StandardProtocolFamily? The spec does not say so, unlike
javax.lang.model.SourceVersion, and the code in the JDK expects a
binary flag, so I think the answer is "no".
Does this mean the expected way
