adding rsockets support into JDK

[Lu, Yingqi]

Thank you Chris for your feedback. I already modify accordingly to  https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8203434

Thanks,
Lucy

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chris Hegarty [mailto:chris.hegarty at oracle.com]
>Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 9:27 AM
>To: Lu, Yingqi <yingqi.lu at intel.com>
>Cc: nio-dev at openjdk.java.net; Viswanathan, Sandhya
><sandhya.viswanathan at intel.com>; Aundhe, Shirish
><shirish.aundhe at intel.com>; Kaczmarek, Eric <eric.kaczmarek at intel.com>
>Subject: Re: adding rsockets support into JDK
>
>In addition to the comments so far ...
>
>1) I know that the scope of the JEP is JDK, but it would be clearer
>    once "Non-public classes" is removed, to rename "Public APIs" to
>    "JDK-specific API/classes".
>
>2) As for the title, maybe:
>    "Socket *factory* for Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA)
>
>    to make it clear that it is not a new Socket API.
>
>-Chris.
>
>On 18/05/18 17:06, Lu, Yingqi wrote:
>> Thank you for your feedback, Alan!
>>
>> I will modify accordingly, update the JEP online and send a copy to jdk-dev
>for broader review.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Lucy
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Alan Bateman [mailto:Alan.Bateman at oracle.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 7:20 AM
>>> To: Lu, Yingqi <yingqi.lu at intel.com>
>>> Cc: nio-dev at openjdk.java.net; Viswanathan, Sandhya
>>> <sandhya.viswanathan at intel.com>; Aundhe, Shirish
>>> <shirish.aundhe at intel.com>; Kaczmarek, Eric
>>> <eric.kaczmarek at intel.com>
>>> Subject: Re: adding rsockets support into JDK
>>>
>>> On 16/05/2018 20:26, Lu, Yingqi wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> I have just submitted the initial JEP draft at
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8203314 and linked it to the
>>> bug JDK-8195160.
>>>>
>>>> Do I also need to submit a PDF version to
>>>> jep-submit at openjdk.java.net or
>>> jdk-dev email list?
>>>>
>>>> Please review the JEP draft and let me know your comments and
>feedback.
>>>>
>>> I agree with Paul that it would be good to get "RDMA" into the title
>>> and summary.
>>>
>>> What would you think about dropping the "Non-public classes" sections
>>> and the class diagrams from the Description? That will reduce the
>>> Description significantly and make it easier for readers to see that
>>> the proposal is to expose the support as factory methods in
>jdk.net.Sockets.
>>>
>>> I think the Testing section should make it clear that test requires
>>> special hardware.
>>>
>>> The Alternative section looks good, just change "JDK1.7" to "JDK 7".
>>>
>>> Risks and Assumptions #3 - I think this can be expanded a bit to say
>>> that SocketChannels to RDMA sockets cannot be multiplexed with other
>>> selectable channels.
>>>
>>> -Alan.