The source code changes look fine to me.
I'm not sure why you enabled a security manager in the test. I don't
think that it needs one. You can remove the explicit setting of the SM
from the test code, remove the policy file, and the also the jtreg
policy tag. Otherwise looks fine.
-Chris.
I looked at the source code changes, and it looks good.
Thanks,
- Kurchi
On 3/13/2013 7:42 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
The source code changes look fine to me.
I'm not sure why you enabled a security manager in the test. I don't
think that it needs one. You can remove the explicit setting of
Thank you Rob.
-Chris
On 13 Mar 2013, at 18:02, Rob McKenna rob.mcke...@oracle.com wrote:
Thanks Kurchi, Chris, Dmitry,
I'm planning to fix that testcase and to make the logger final before
integration.
-Rob
On 13/03/13 17:55, Kurchi Hazra wrote:
I looked at the source code
I am wondering why do you need two try-catch blocks here.
- Kurchi
On 3/7/13 8:18 AM, Rob McKenna wrote:
Hi folks,
This is a slight alteration of the fix contributed by Stuart Douglas.
This fix deals with a SocketException caused by getSoTimeout() on a
closed connection.
The outer try/catch is meant to catch potential exceptions originating
from the inner try/finally. (from setSoTimeout)
-Rob
On 07/03/13 16:51, Kurchi Subhra Hazra wrote:
I am wondering why do you need two try-catch blocks here.
- Kurchi
On 3/7/13 8:18 AM, Rob McKenna wrote:
Hi folks,
I've fleshed out the bug report a little to make that clearer, sorry Kurchi!
Also, I'll add a testcase to this review soon.
-Rob
On 07/03/13 16:51, Kurchi Subhra Hazra wrote:
I am wondering why do you need two try-catch blocks here.
- Kurchi
On 3/7/13 8:18 AM, Rob McKenna wrote:
Hi
Hi Dmitry,
I'm not 100% sure what you mean by duplication, the exceptions and their
messages are distinct. I think it would be best to keep it that way.
-Rob
On 07/03/13 22:00, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
Rob,
Is it possible to avoid code duplication?
i.e. do something like this:
int
Rob,
Sorry for not being clean enough. We have repeated pattern:
if (logger.isLoggable(PlatformLogger.FINEST)) {
logger.finest(HttpClient.available(): + msg
}
so it makes code better readable if we can put it to some common place.
-Dmitry
On 2013-03-08 02:31, Rob McKenna wrote:
Hi
Ah, I see what you mean. Can do.
-Rob
On 07/03/13 23:13, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
Rob,
Sorry for not being clean enough. We have repeated pattern:
if (logger.isLoggable(PlatformLogger.FINEST)) {
logger.finest(HttpClient.available(): + msg
}
so it makes code better readable if
