[jboss-dev] https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBPAPP-2941

[Richard Achmatowicz]

Is it really necessary to introduce a new notation? Under the assumption 
that the address
passed in as a Context.PROVIDER_URL is well formed, its easy to separate 
the host from the
(optional) port. With a few extra lines of code to do this, the original 
failures no longer appear
when running the testsuite.

In fact, the whole of the EAP 4.2.GA_CP testsuite now seems to run clean 
against IPv6, with the fixes
to JNDI, aside from the clustering tests where there seems to be a 
problem with explicit IPv6 addresses
and the use of cookies (https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBPAPP-3008).

David M. Lloyd wrote:
> On 10/26/2009 06:39 PM, Scott Stark wrote:
>   
>> Regarding the IPV6 issue in JBPAPP-2941, there was a change in JBNAME-25
>> to support an alternate syntax using '@' as the host/port separator:
>>
>> "jnp://[3ffe:ffff:100:f101::1]@1099"
>>
>> Does this not work for the EAP usage?
>>     
>
> A couple problems with this fix - first, it uses InetSocketAddress as a 
> hash key, which contains InetAddress, which can trigger DNS lookups on 
> equals/hashCode; you might get away with this if you only store addresses 
> which you know to be fully resolved, but it's still a bit iffy if you ask 
> me.  I don't know if this was among the fixes that Jason made for the 
> InetAddress-as-key situation.
>
> Second, this isn't really RFC compliant at all and will cause URI parsing 
> to crap out.  Is there a problem with using the RFC syntax?  I couldn't 
> find any discussion in the JIRA but I might just be blind
>
> - DML
> _______________________________________________
> jboss-development mailing list
> jboss-development at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development
>