RFR 4906983: java.net.URL constructors throw MalformedURLException in undocumented way

[Sebastian Sickelmann]

Hi,

first thanks to Chris and David for their helpful input . I looked
through the existing
Testcases and found one that is already testing for negative-port numbers.
So i extended the @bug line with "4906983" which I hope is the right
solution to do it.

I am with Chris, when he says normally you only have numbers between 1 and
65535 (because many protocols are using tcp). So i changed to
documentation as
Chris suggested it.

But ports above this "natural" barrier are valid too. It depends on the
protocol what
to do with the port information. So I also extended the testcase to
check that their are
valid port numbers also above 65535 and the special -1.

But i asked myself should

new URL("http://server:-1/path");

be realy a valid URL? What do you think?

Special thanks to David who hosted the new webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dbuck/4906983.1/

-- Sebastian


Am 10.09.2015 um 12:38 schrieb Chris Hegarty:
> Another minor comment...
>
> While what you have suggested is not incorrect, I’m afraid it is giving the wrong impression about the typical acceptable port ranges. A port of Integer.MAX_VALUE is not all that useful, since it typically maps to a TCP port number ( but not always ). Maybe just remove the valid values from @param port, and add something like the following to MalformedURLException: “.., or the port is a negative number other than -1” ?
>
> -Chris.
>
> On 10 Sep 2015, at 11:13, Chris Hegarty <chris.hegarty at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8 Sep 2015, at 21:01, Sebastian Sickelmann <sebastian.sickelmann at gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Please find my small patch[1] to javadoc in java.net.URL that adresses
>>> JDK-4906983(javadoc-fix)[2].
>>>
>>> I signed the SCA/OCA some time ago. Feel free to check at the OCA
>>> Signatures-List[3]
>>>
>>> thanks to david buck for hosting this patch on cr.openjdk.java.net.
>>>
>>> -- Sebastian Sickelmann
>>>
>>> [1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dbuck/4906983.0/
>> Just to confirm this is a spec only change, that documents long standing existing behaviour, right?
>>
>> I think we should add a minimal testcase to cover this.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Chris.
>>
>>> [2] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-4906983
>>>
>>> [3] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/community/oca-486395.html
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/net-dev/attachments/20150910/94c56dd8/attachment.html>