RFR [12] 8213490: Networking area nano cleanup

[Ivan Gerasimov]

Hi Pavel!

All looks good to me!

Do you want to change  ie. -> i.e.  here as well:

src/java.base/windows/native/libnet/net_util_md.c

- * 2. If the reqeusted port is 0 (*ie*. any port) then we try to bind 
in v4 space
+ * 2. If the requested port is 0 (*ie*. any port) then we try to bind 
in v4 space

And a couple more of duplicate words to remove:

jdk/internal/net/http/Http1AsyncReceiver.java:        // If the queue is 
not empty, wait until *it it* is empty before
jdk/internal/net/http/Http2Connection.java:    // if true, *the the* 
stream may be assigned to this connection


With kind regards,

Ivan


On 11/12/18 3:51 PM, Pavel Rappo wrote:
> Daniel, Alan,
>
> I excluded the update from the draft to the RFC and created a separate bug
> for it:
>
>    [P5] 8213757: Investigate the possibility of updating the reference to the
>    spec in java.net.Inet6Address
>
> I added the changes to the URI class from JDK-8213490, which then effectively
> became a duplicate. Please have a look at the result here:
>
>    http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prappo/8213490/webrev.01/
>
> -Pavel
>
>> On 12 Nov 2018, at 18:14, Alan Bateman <Alan.Bateman at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/11/2018 17:30, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>>> Hi Pavel,
>>>
>>> The typos fixes look OK to me - I'll let Michael/Chris?
>>> who have more knowledge on the history of the Inet6Address
>>> impl to validate the new link - though I suspect that's OK.
>>>
>> It will need a CSR because it changes Inet6Address to specify that it can be extended with scoped addresses described by RFC 4007. It might need analysis to understand the differences between the draft and RFC 4007 (just in case it brings up implementation or conformance test issues).
>>
>> -Alan
>

-- 
With kind regards,
Ivan Gerasimov

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/net-dev/attachments/20181112/8d7ff89c/attachment.html>