RFR 8005226: TEST_BUG: java/rmi/transport/pinClientSocketFactory/PinClientSocketFactory.java fails intermittently

[Chris Hegarty]

On 04/03/15 15:26, Roger Riggs wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> Is the choice of 9999 as the ephemeral port ok?

It should be, or it could be any positive integer value.

> Though it is artificial is there any chance it will be confused with a
> real port?

There should be no confusion since the test is providing a custom socket 
factory, and that factory knows about this "special" port number.

> Would a negative number   (or zero) work just as well for this purpose?
> Or does it get rejected in one of the layers it has to pass through.

It gets rejected :-(

> typo:  "support listing on an ephemeral port"-> "support *listening* on
> an ephemeral port"

Fixed.

-Chris.

> Roger
>
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephemeral_port
>
> On 3/4/2015 10:01 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>> This is a small, test only, review request to fix an intermittently
>> failing test.
>>
>> There is an inherent race, and possible failure, following the
>> getUnusedRandomPort pattern. This test can be modified to use a custom
>> socket factory, supporting listening on an ephemeral port, without
>> changing the behavior of the test.
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8005226/webrev.00/webrev/
>>
>> -Chris.
>