RFR: 8332623: Remove setTTL()/getTTL() methods from DatagramSocketImpl/MulticastSocket and MulticastSocket.send(DatagramPacket, byte) [v2]

[Daniel Fuchs]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 10:42:12 GMT, Jaikiran Pai <jpai at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Can I please get a review of this change which proposes to remove the deprecated-for-removal methods from `MulticastSocket` and `DatagramSocketImpl`? 
>> 
>> The following methods on `java.net.MulticastSocket` and `java.net.DatagramSocketImpl`:
>> 
>> 
>> public void setTTL(byte ttl) throws IOException
>> public byte getTTL() throws IOException
>> 
>> 
>> and this other one on `MulticastSocket`:
>> 
>> 
>> public void send(DatagramPacket p, byte ttl) throws IOException 
>> 
>> 
>> have been deprecated for removal since Java 23, through https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8332181. Even before that they have been deprecated since Java 1.2 and Java 1.4.
>> 
>> The commit in this PR removes them completely. This PR also removes some tests that were specifically testing the `setTTL()/getTTL()/send(DatagramPacket, byte)` methods. A few other tests have been adjusted to use the alternate `getTimeToLive()/setTimeToLive()` methods where appropriate.
>> 
>> Existing tests in tier1, tier2 and tier3 continue to pass with these changes.
>
> Jaikiran Pai has updated the pull request incrementally with three additional commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - no need to setTimeToLive() in AdaptorMulticasting test
>  - undo change to "@summary" of a test
>  - remove sendLock

Generally look good. One question on one of the tests.

test/jdk/java/net/DatagramSocket/SendCheck.java line 133:

> 131:                 Sender.of(DatagramChannel.open().socket()),
> 132:                 Sender.of((MulticastSocket)
> 133:                         DatagramChannel.open().socket(), (byte) 0)

Should we instead just remove the ttl parameter and test with plain MulticastSocket::send?

-------------

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25744#pullrequestreview-2916814072
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25744#discussion_r2139934428