Return-Path: 
 <harmony-dev-return-9231-apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 91505 invoked from network); 25 Jun 2006 00:22:42 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199)
  by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 25 Jun 2006 00:22:42 -0000
Received: (qmail 59994 invoked by uid 500); 25 Jun 2006 00:22:35 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 59956 invoked by uid 500); 25 Jun 2006 00:22:35 -0000
Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org>
List-Id: <harmony-dev.incubator.apache.org>
Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 59945 invoked by uid 99); 25 Jun 2006 00:22:35 -0000
Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 24 Jun 2006 17:22:35 -0700
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=10.0
	tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of zhanghuangzhu@gmail.com
 designates 66.249.82.198 as permitted sender)
Received: from [66.249.82.198] (HELO wx-out-0102.google.com) (66.249.82.198)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 24 Jun 2006 17:22:34 -0700
Received: by wx-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id t16so725759wxc
        for <harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org>;
 Sat, 24 Jun 2006 17:22:13 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        b=o1uy1psZMCoAAIuRfk10F/kIPgHVgudFqByZxI0RANknAVYKHn+qKYhgSdOSNc5BtuzMPxJo6w+dNnKOHh1+d51w+o8h3bTCvx9gX6Sq3IUg24xaos2MwYmOCYot+aSOnpHAanB9tG2LWrCBduqo9D8+SiNJiQ/zZkIOKjHHnEM=
Received: by 10.70.116.6 with SMTP id o6mr3036910wxc;
        Sat, 24 Jun 2006 17:22:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.118.15 with HTTP; Sat, 24 Jun 2006 17:22:13 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4d0b24970606241722x2a7c91aeqe02022a1c9ea438a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 08:22:13 +0800
From: "Andrew Zhang" <zhanghuangzhu@gmail.com>
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org, geir@pobox.com
Subject: Re: RI's bug of Socket.getOutputStream().write(byte[]) ?
In-Reply-To: <449DD55F.70205@pobox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_38854_29947811.1151194933086"
References: <4d0b24970606222347s58923dd9se8e7ce9c96de1894@mail.gmail.com>
	 <449BA6C8.2010308@gmail.com>
	 <4d0b24970606230216m3d3d8d39k37f5f2f6fefa1e05@mail.gmail.com>
	 <636fd28e0606230223u3f4380cexa160bf46dae1e36c@mail.gmail.com>
	 <449BB6E1.2060602@gmail.com>
	 <e09a11790606230340j28c7eaa3va9038b34d5f79d80@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4d0b24970606230630pbfe78bxa23e0348e418d3dc@mail.gmail.com>
	 <449BF6D4.3040101@gmail.com>
	 <4d0b24970606230831q3fed5d41p7880162c5f496aed@mail.gmail.com>
	 <449DD55F.70205@pobox.com>
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org
X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

------=_Part_38854_29947811.1151194933086
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On 6/25/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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.


Great Geir!
If no one objects, I'm going to fix those "getNextPort()" codes in LUNI/NIO
module.

geir
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>


-- 
Andrew Zhang
China Software Development Lab, IBM

------=_Part_38854_29947811.1151194933086--