Re: [jboss-dev] https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBPAPP-2941
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(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development