On 03/06/2019 16:17, Arthur Eubanks wrote:
I don't think it's a big difference either way, but changed it to
System.out. Also added some extra info to the "Exception Tests"
log to show the addresses it's testing. Now it looks like:
webrev.03 looks okay to me.
-Alan
Please review this change to fix a bug in the handling of SO_LINGER in
the plain socket impl, when setting or retrieving the option through
the new-style setOption or getOption, respectively. The implementation
of the new-style option just delegates to the old-style implementation,
but the old-styl
On 04/06/2019 12:54, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Please review this change to fix a bug in the handling of SO_LINGER in
the plain socket impl, when setting or retrieving the option through
the new-style setOption or getOption, respectively. The implementation
of the new-style option just delegates to th
Alan,
> On 4 Jun 2019, at 13:17, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> ...
> For the test it might be cleaner if the soLinger test were renamed and called
> from doSocketTests. That is, it's a bit strange to test Socket, ServerSocket,
> ... and then come back to do a specialized test for Socket linger. The
>
On 04/06/2019 13:48, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Updated as suggested:
https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8225214/webrev.01/
I assume soLinger doesn't need to be public. I guess I'd rename it
something like testSoLingerValues so that it's a bit cleaner when
reading the call in doSocketTests but what
Alan,
> On 4 Jun 2019, at 13:50, Alan Bateman wrote:
>
> On 04/06/2019 13:48, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>> Updated as suggested:
>> https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8225214/webrev.01/
> I assume soLinger doesn't need to be public. I guess I'd rename it something
> like testSoLingerValues so that
On 04/06/2019 13:56, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Alan,
On 4 Jun 2019, at 13:50, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 04/06/2019 13:48, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Updated as suggested:
https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8225214/webrev.01/
I assume soLinger doesn't need to be public. I guess I'd rename it something
