RFR: 8325579: Inconsistent behavior in com.sun.jndi.ldap.Connection::createSocket [v8]
Daniel Fuchs
dfuchs at openjdk.org
Fri Mar 15 09:54:40 UTC 2024
On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 21:59:54 GMT, Christoph Langer <clanger at openjdk.org> wrote:
>> During analysing a customer case I figured out that we have an inconsistency between documentation and actual behavior in class com.sun.jndi.ldap.Connection. The [method documentation of com.sun.jndi.ldap.Connection::createSocket](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/3ebe6c192a5dd5cc46ae2d263713c9ff38cd46bb/src/java.naming/share/classes/com/sun/jndi/ldap/Connection.java#L281) states: "If a timeout is supplied but unconnected sockets are not supported then the timeout is ignored and a connected socket is created."
>>
>> This, however does not happen. If a SocketFactory would not support unconnected sockets, it would likely throw a SocketException in [SocketFactory::createSocket()](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/6303c0e7136436a2d3cb6043b88edf788c0067cc/src/java.base/share/classes/javax/net/SocketFactory.java#L123). And since [the code](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/3ebe6c192a5dd5cc46ae2d263713c9ff38cd46bb/src/java.naming/share/classes/com/sun/jndi/ldap/Connection.java#L336) does not check for this behavior, a connection with timeout value through a SocketFactory that does not support unconnected sockets would simply fail with an IOException.
>>
>> So we should either make the code adhere to what is documented or adapt the documentation to the actual behavior.
>>
>> I hereby try to fix the connect coding. Alternatively, we could also adapt the description - I have no strong opinion. What do the experts suggest?
>
> Christoph Langer has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 12 additional commits since the last revision:
>
> - Update module-info text
> - Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8325579
> - Indentation
> - Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8325579
> - Review feedback
> - Rename back to LdapSSLHandshakeFailureTest to ease reviewing
> - Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8325579
> - Typo
> - Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8325579
> - Rename test and refine comment
> - ... and 2 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/5d79093e...10271159
LGTM. I haven't looked at the updated test too closely.
-------------
Marked as reviewed by dfuchs (Reviewer).
PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17797#pullrequestreview-1938532665
More information about the core-libs-dev
mailing list