Ping: RFR (M): 8167481: cleanup of headers and includes for native libnet

[Langer, Christoph]

Chris,

I created a new version that addresses your points:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~clanger/webrevs/8167481.1/

I reordered the headers according to your suggestions ( 1) system, 2) platform specific includes, 3) JNI includes, and finally, 4) generated headers ), added the @Native and removed the Windows stuff in net_util_md.h. To make reodering of system includes possible, I had to add back some system headers in a few places and could not always maintain the alphabetical order.

I think you should run it through PRT and then hopefully give me your final blessing...

Thanks & Best regards
Christoph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Hegarty [mailto:chris.hegarty at oracle.com]
> Sent: Dienstag, 18. Oktober 2016 20:56
> To: Langer, Christoph <christoph.langer at sap.com>; net-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: Ping: RFR (M): 8167481: cleanup of headers and includes for native
> libnet
> 
> Christoph,
> 
> > On 17 Oct 2016, at 09:40, Langer, Christoph <christoph.langer at sap.com>
> wrote:
> > …
> > Hi,
> >
> > as I already mentioned, here is another proposal for cleanup in libnet:
> > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8167481
> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~clanger/webrevs/8167481.0/
> 
> Overall, this looks good. Specific comments below ...
> 
> > This time I touched the includes. Generally I reordered the includes to include
> “net_util.h” first, then any JNI includes, such as “java_net_InetAddress.h” and
> finally all standard header includes in alphabetical order. For platform specific
> includes, I use the order Linux, AIX, Solaris, BSD. I removed all includes that
> don’t seem to be necessary to get the respective file compiled. Is that the
> correct approach that is desired?
> 
> It is good to be consistent. My personal preference is to order the includes;
> 1) system, 2) platform specific includes, 3) JNI includes, and finally, 4)
> generated headers ( e.g. “java_net_InetAddress.h” ).
> 
> > To make this work, I had to remove the definitions “IPv4” and “IPv6” in
> net_util.h and replace their usages with “java_net_InetAddress_IPv4” resp.
> “java_net_InetAddress_IPv6” from JNI which seems to be the correct thing to
> do anyway.
> 
> Right. This is a good change. Trivially, and it is not strictly necessary but
> good for readability, would be to add @Native to InetAddress.IPv4 and
> InetAddress.IPv6.
> 
> > For Windows I also cleaned up (removed) the definition of SOCKADDR_IN6 in
> net_util_md.h and replaced all occurences with sockaddr_in6. It seems that the
> capital letters version SOCKADDR_IN6 is a remainder of a very old Microsoft
> runtime (_MSC_VER < 1310) which corresponds to MSVC 7.0, which is even
> older than Visual Studio 2003. So I’m wondering if I should remove the whole
> section in windows net_util_md.h now (lines 47 – 177)?
> 
> I think it should be ok to remove this.
> 
> > For Windows it seems that we can also completely get rid of
> src/java.base/windows/native/libnet/icmp.h as the icmp stuff is all brought by
> the #include <icmpapi.h>. Would you agree to that?
> 
> Ok.
> 
> > So far I successfully ran builds in my local environments for Windows, Linux,
> AIX, Solaris and Apple. I’ve now added the changeset to our local regression
> testing environment for OpenJDK. If the change is to your like, I would like to
> ask you to also run it through JPRT to see if I missed some dependency.
> 
> I ran your patch through our internal build and test system and there
> are no surprises.
> 
> -Chris.
> 
> > Thanks and best regards
> > Christoph