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

[Roger Riggs]

Thanks, looks fine to me.

Roger

On 3/4/2015 10:53 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> 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.
>>