Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of zhanghuangzhu@gmail.com
 designates 64.233.184.231 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        b=SHlM1mMvMKcQcc0vMxakdPRmoq+TED9kEUK1V+YhSIgwGDDGu5tAgEJHvP82TGuvipBcTG/eaQpwBtg2fNSJLtXBK9o28dUf4d37ahMa0Sn80cAZ2fYGJWm3yRRPNrJ6mAGYrM89F2e7QmGqWXtmH7FzCdw1h70t8stPFDv8ico=
Message-ID: <4d0b24970704190113n709a01f4m93e5acd559369bfd@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:13:42 +0800
From: "Andrew Zhang" <zhanghuangzhu@gmail.com>
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Subject: Re: [classlib][luni] new test in tests.api.java.net.SocketTest failed
 on my Windows XP sp2
In-Reply-To: <4626D9B0.4060606@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_155274_21726832.1176970422660"
References: <7273946b0704170150u10fe9f13vd430f0a3aa0399e2@mail.gmail.com>
	 <46248CBA.7010702@gmail.com>
	 <7273946b0704170216k43e3165cx30a19eb0ce27ea92@mail.gmail.com>
	 <462498F7.6050300@gmail.com> <4624B462.1030607@gmail.com>
	 <4626D9B0.4060606@gmail.com>

------=_Part_155274_21726832.1176970422660
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On 4/19/07, Ruth Cao <ruoshen.c@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Tim Ellison wrote:
> > Ruth Cao wrote:
> >
> >> You are right, Vladimir.
> >>
> >> It is just because the 'port' variable is set to 8080 and on some
> >> machines this port has already been occupied.  The test case will pass
> >> if we use Support_PortManager.getNextPort() on my side.
> >>
> >
> > Please don't use the PortManager, just open port 0 and let the OS
> > allocate a free port.  There are examples in the existing tests.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tim
> >
> >
> Yes, I agree that we should use port 0 in almost all the test cases.
> However, it seems that this test case is a little bit special. It
> requires to initialize a ServerSocket to connect 0.0.0.0 after
> connecting localhost successfully.  If we use port 0 and 0.0.0.0 at the
> same time, the ServerSocket constructed will be invalid.


Sorry Ruth, what did you mean here? A server socket  will connect to
somewhere?

Could you please explain the scenario a bit more clearly?

Thus, shall we assign a rarely-used port (e.g. 50000), or continue using
> Support_PortManager? Any ideas? Suggestions?
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Ruth Cao
> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>
>
>


-- 
Best regards,
Andrew Zhang

------=_Part_155274_21726832.1176970422660--