adding rsockets support into JDK

[Lu, Yingqi]

Hi Chris,

Thank you for your detailed review. Yes, only RdmaSockets and RdmaSocketOptions have JDK specific specs.

I will send version 17 this morning.

Thanks,
Lucy

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chris Hegarty [mailto:chris.hegarty at oracle.com]
>Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 9:12 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
>
>Lucy,
>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ylu/8195160.16/
>
>In terms of review, I’m going to focus on the specification, since that is the
>immediate priority to get the CSR finalized. Given the last few emails, I think
>that the implementation is in fairly reasonable shape anyhow.
>
>Only two files have spec impact, and I will comment on them separately
>( please correct me if these two are not the only files containing  JDK-specific
>spec) :
>
>1) src/jdk.net/share/classes/jdk/net/RdmaSocketOptions.java
>
>  a) Class-level description contains:
>    "Defines socket options specific to rsocket."
>
>    Suggest:
>      "Defines socket options specific to RDMA-based TCP sockets and
>       channels."
>
>  b) All options start with "Set the integer size ..." - it should just
>     be "The integer size ..."
>
>2) src/jdk.net/share/classes/jdk/net/RdmaSockets.java
>
>  a) As already agreed, please remove the following superfluous methods:
>     `setOption` x2, `getOption` x2,  `supportedOptions`. And the
>     verbiage in the class-level description that relates to these.
>
>  b) I'm ok wherever these factory methods end up, either in `Sockets`
>     or in `RdmaSockets`. If they stay in `RdmaSockets` then `Rdma` can
>     be removed from their name, e.g. `RdmaSockets::openSocket`.
>
>  c) Is it possible to just remove references to `rsocket`? there are
>     currently 4., e.g. "@apiNote The rsocket implementation on Linux
>     only supports IPv4 addresses." Surely there is likely to be just
>     one implementation. I wonder also if this should be an *impl*Note
>     rather than an *api*Note.
>
>  d) If keeping the `RdmaSockets` class, then please remove the many
>     `@since 12` javadoc tags from each method, and just add a single
>     class-level tag.
>
>-Chris.
>
>
>> On 14 Nov 2018, at 17:06, Lu, Yingqi <yingqi.lu at intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> Thank you for your feedback.
>>
>> I was following the suggestion [1] from Joe Darcy to move the RDMA factory
>methods from jdk.net.Sockets to jdk.net.RDMASockets.
>>
>> I will remove setOption and getOption methods from jdk.net.RdmaSockets
>in the next version of the patch. At the meantime, please let me know if there
>is anything else missing from the current version.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Lucy
>>
>> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8205186
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----