harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexei Fedotov" <alexei.fedo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib][net] issue H-1879 HttpURLConnectionTest
Date Fri, 24 Nov 2006 22:49:47 GMT
Alexey,

I saw that you had assigned the bug
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-1879 to yourself. What do
you think of the following fix?
    http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12345485/HARMONY-1879-HttpURLConnectionTest(3).patch

Does it worth to be committed as is? I've got one more idea of what we
can do about this issue, but it complicates things, and this fix is
enough to make things work.

All,
Your comments about the patch are welcome.

With best regards, Alexei

On 11/24/06, Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com> wrote:
> It was mine request? Oh, guy, it seems I'm getting old... :-)
>
> On 11/23/06, Alexey Petrenko <alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2006/11/23, Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com>:
> > > Gregory, this is a good question. Let me tell this long story.
> > >
> > > Jimmy tried to run the test using J9 VM and the test passed. I beleive
> > > Alexey Petrenko considered that fact as a justification to move the
> > > bug to [drlvm] category. Alexey, is my understanding correct?
> > No. I've changed it by your request.
> >
> > SY, Alexey
> >
> > > Why the test passed on J9? Denis found out that the issue with test is
> > > actually server synchronization issue. It is not a surprise that our
> > > VMs implement threading differently.
> > >
> > > Then Denis proposed a fix which made a test less dependent from
> > > synchronization.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11/22/06, Gregory Shimansky <gshimansky@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Denis Kishenko wrote:
> > > > > Dear committers, please take a look on H-1879
> > > >
> > > > Is there a reason why this bug has drlvm category, and has [drlvm]
> > > > prefix? I see from the history of this bug that it was transferred back
> > > > and forth. The attached patches change only classlib test...
> > > >
> > > > > 2006/11/22, Fedotov, Alexei A <alexei.a.fedotov@intel.com>:
> > > > >> +1
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >-----Original Message-----
> > > > >> >From: Denis Kishenko [mailto:dkishenko@gmail.com]
> > > > >> >Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 5:40 PM
> > > > >> >To: dev@harmony.apache.org
> > > > >> >Subject: Re: [classlib][net] issue H-1879 HttpURLConnectionTest
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >Alexei,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >Synchronization of accept() looks like test improvement,
so I will
> > > > >> >attach new patch to fix H-1879 and we will try to find solution
for
> > > > >> >accept synchronization.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >2006/11/22, Fedotov, Alexei A <alexei.a.fedotov@intel.com>:
> > > > >> >> Ok, I see. Makes sense for me. I cannot imagine anything
better at
> > > > >> this
> > > > >> >> moment, and if this works, that's great.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> There is still a problem with accept() call which is
not
> > > > >> synchronized,
> > > > >> >> but I don't see how we can fix this correctly. accept()
call is
> > > > >> >> synchronized using related ServerSocket object, but
this doesn't help
> > > > >> us
> > > > >> >> - this blocking doesn't release an object lock.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> With best regards,
> > > > >> >> Alexei Fedotov,
> > > > >> >> Intel Java & XML Engineering
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> >-----Original Message-----
> > > > >> >> >From: Denis Kishenko [mailto:dkishenko@gmail.com]
> > > > >> >> >Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 8:06 PM
> > > > >> >> >To: dev@harmony.apache.org
> > > > >> >> >Subject: Re: [classlib][net] issue H-1879 HttpURLConnectionTest
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >I can suggest add flag to avoid situation described
above (see
> > > > >> attached
> > > > >> >> >fix).
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >2006/11/21, Denis Kishenko <dkishenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > >> >> >> Alexei,
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> Yep, syncronization is necessary but not such
way.
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> As you said, test try to control server/proxy
starting using
> > > > >> >> >> bound.wait(5000). It looks like on linux server/proxy
thread
> > > > >> started
> > > > >> >> >> eallier then on winxp.
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> In other words, what we are waiting for
> > > > >> >> >> 1. start server thread
> > > > >> >> >> 2. bound.wait
> > > > >> >> >> 3. bound.notify
> > > > >> >> >> 4. start proxy thread
> > > > >> >> >> 5. bound.wait
> > > > >> >> >> 6. bound.notify
> > > > >> >> >> 7. connect
> > > > >> >> >> but we have on linux
> > > > >> >> >> 1. start server thread
> > > > >> >> >> 2. bound.notify
> > > > >> >> >> 3. bound.wait
> > > > >> >> >> ---- wait 5 seconds -----
> > > > >> >> >> 4. start proxy thread
> > > > >> >> >> 5. bound.notify
> > > > >> >> >> 6. bound.wait
> > > > >> >> >> ---- wait 5 seconds -----
> > > > >> >> >> 7. connect
> > > > >> >> >>

Mime
View raw message