harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geir Magnusson Jr <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: RI's bug of Socket.getOutputStream().write(byte[]) ?
Date Sun, 25 Jun 2006 00:14:23 GMT

Andrew Zhang wrote:
> On 6/23/06, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Andrew Zhang wrote:
>> > Hi Alexander,
>> >
>> > Thanks for your kind reminder.
>> >
>> > Certainly I'll use sth. like Support_PortManager.getNextPort() to avoid
>> > such
>> > port conflict issue.
>> No, please!  Don't perpetuate that abomination<g>!  Alexander is right,
>> you should bind to port 0 and let the OS assign one.
> Yes, I agree that getNextPort doesn't really get the next free port, and
> bind to port 0 is the right way.
> But if I remembered clearly, in Jetty based tests thread, someone objected
> automatically select port.
> "> What's the problem if the port is selected automatically?
> Repeatability.  IMO, there should be no random elements in our testing.
> That leads to frustration, fear, despair, pathos, pain, agony, angst and
> much pulling of limited resources, like hair, in my case."

That was me, and that was to ensure repeatability :)  Of course, I had a
slightly different notion of a test in mind, not one where the same
thread is both the client and server.  In fact, what I was imagining was
that the server and client were in separate VMs at least, and separate
machines too.


Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org

View raw message