The new test case is just a test in order to make sure this approach works in the testing environment. I plan to remove both of the sample and template, and re-org them to a class that can be inherited from.
Xuelei > On 27 Oct 2016, at 12:31 AM, Bradford Wetmore <bradford.wetm...@oracle.com> > wrote: > > Xuelei, > > Sorry that I didn't have time to look at this earlier. > > Why did you create a new file SSLSocketSample.java instead of just updating > SSLSocketTemplate.java? Why should I use one vs the other? > > IMHO, unless there's a good reason to keep both, we should just copy the > contents of SSLSocketSample.java to SSLSocketTemplate.java, and remove > SSLSocketSample.java. > > Brad > > > >> On 7/24/2016 10:22 PM, Weijun Wang wrote: >> >> >>> On 7/25/2016 13:14, Xuelei Fan wrote: >>>> On 7/25/2016 12:15 PM, Weijun Wang wrote: >>>> Is it possible to use a single new CountDownLatch(2)? >>>> >>> Per the spec, the countDown() release all waiting threads if the count >>> reaches zero, and the await() will not return until the latch has >>> counted down to zero, or interrupted or timeout. It's difficult to use >>> one instance of CountDownLatch(2) for two conditions. >> >> Ah, yes. I forgot about that. >> >>> >>>> Also, I think comments on lines 145-149 and 199-203 are not really >>>> necessary, the println() lines after them are quite clear. >>>> >>> The comments make the logic easier to understand, I think. Let's keep >>> the comments if it is not a big concern of yours. >> >> Sure. >> >> So everything looks fine to me. >> >> Thanks >> Max >> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Xuelei >>> >>>> --Max >>>> >>>>> On 7/25/2016 11:38, Xuelei Fan wrote: >>>>> Hi Weijun, >>>>> >>>>> Please review this update. Per you suggestion, I updated to use >>>>> CountDownLatch for the synchronization between client and server. >>>>> CountDownLatch is more simple than ReentrantLock in the context. >>>>> >>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~xuelei/8161106/webrev.03/ >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Xuelei >>>>> >>>
