RFR: 8245194: Unix domain socket channel implementation [v20]

[Michael McMahon]

On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 11:37:09 GMT, Daniel Fuchs <dfuchs at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Michael McMahon 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 22 additional commits since
>> the last revision:
>>  - Merge branch 'master' into unixdomainchannels
>>  - - reorganised the channel impls back into SocketChannelImpl and ServerSocketChannelImpl
>>    - removed the new Unix domain socket events and folded the behavior into the existing socket events
>>    - implemented other comments from Alan on Oct 11.
>>  - unixdomainchannels: updates from Chris's review 9 Oct 2020
>>  - unixdomainchannels:
>>    - updated property name
>>    - added JFR unit test
>>  - Merge branch 'master' into unixdomainchannels
>>  - - update after Alan's review on Oct 4
>>    - includes API change required by JDK-8251952
>>    - original CSR for the overall change will be resubmitted with
>>      all api changes consolidated based on this update
>>  - - simplified Copy.gmk to CAT source files directly
>>    - renamed net.properties source files to all be net.properties
>>  - unixdomainchannels: error in the last commit in make/modules/java.base/Copy.gmk
>>  - unixdomainchannels:
>>    (1) rename UnixDomainHelper to UnixDomainSocketsUtil
>>    (2) remove hardcoded /tmp and /var/tmp paths from UnixDomainSocketsUtil
>>    (3) replace (2) with documented system/networking properties
>>    (4) Small update to UnixDomainSocketAddress API
>>    (5) CSR for (3) and (4) submitted at JDK-8253930
>>    (6) Update build to generate net.properties from shared net.properties.common
>>        plus platform specific additions.
>>  - Merge branch 'master' into unixdomainchannels
>>  - ... and 12 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/0017bc71...7f677d5a
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/sun/nio/ch/ServerSocketChannelImpl.java line 267:
> 
>> 265:             HashSet<SocketOption<?>> set = new HashSet<>();
>> 266:             set.add(StandardSocketOptions.SO_RCVBUF);
>> 267:             return Collections.unmodifiableSet(set);
> 
> Wondering: should there be a call to `ExtendedSocketOptions` after line 266 here, even if that call just returns an
> empty set?

I suppose for consistency that would make sense, though it would be an empty set for now.

-------------

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/52