[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openjdk-nio-dev
Subject:    Review request for #7087549 (Alan Bateman)
From:       belliedmonkey () gmail ! com (Chris Zhang)
Date:       2011-12-13 1:32:10
Message-ID: 005101ccb937$0abb03f0$20310bd0$ () com
[Download RAW message or body]



-----????????-----
??????: nio-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net
[mailto:nio-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net] ???? nio-dev-request at openjdk.java.
net
????????: 2011??12??13?? 4:00
??????: nio-dev at openjdk.java.net
????: nio-dev Digest, Vol 45, Issue 7

Send nio-dev mailing list submissions to
	nio-dev at openjdk.java.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/nio-dev
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	nio-dev-request at openjdk.java.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
	nio-dev-owner at openjdk.java.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of nio-dev digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Review request for #7087549 (Alan Bateman)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:14:11 +0000
From: Alan Bateman <Alan.Bateman at oracle.com>
Subject: Re: Review request for #7087549
To: Brandon Passanisi <brandon.passanisi at oracle.com>
Cc: nio-dev at openjdk.java.net
Message-ID: <4EE5D3F3.7030504 at oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

On 09/12/2011 20:59, Brandon Passanisi wrote:
> Hi Alan.  I believe I understand the intention now.  Are you 
> suggesting the following:
>
>  1. Change the last line of newInputStream (line 384 in the webrev
>     version of FileSystemProvider.java) so that the options parameter
>     is passed into the Files.newByteChannel() call, i.e.: return
>     Channels.newInputStream(Files.newByteChannel(path, options));
>  2. Since the null check is done by newByteChannel, remove the
>     Objects.requireNonNull call.
>
> If this is correct, I can create an updated webrev for review.
Exactly! The bug is only an issue for providers that support additional 
open options but don't override newInputStream. With the above changes 
then the opens are passed through to newByteChannel so the provider can 
handle them. With that clear then I think the test should be focused on 
exercising newInputStream with custom options, something like the following:

     static enum CustomOptions implements OpenOption {
         IGNORE,
     }

     static class MyProvider extends 
PassThroughFileSystem.PassThroughProvider {
         public MyProvider() {
         }
         public InputStream newInputStream(Path path, OpenOption... options)
             throws IOException
         {
             if (options.length != 1)
                 throw new RuntimeException("One option expected");
             if (options[0] != CustomOptions.IGNORE)
                 throw new RuntimeException(options[0] + " not expected");
             return super.newInputStream(path);
         }
     }

     public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
         FileSystemProvider provider = new MyProvider();
         Map<String,?> env = Collections.emptyMap();
         URI uri = URI.create("pass:///");
         FileSystem fs = provider.newFileSystem(uri, env);

         :
         InputStream in = Files.newInputStream(path, CustomOptions.IGNORE);
     }

PassThroughFileSystem is in test/java/nio/file/Files and is used by 
tests that need to use a custom file system.

-Alan


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nio-dev/attachments/20111212/4f20601b
/attachment-0001.html 

End of nio-dev Digest, Vol 45, Issue 7
**************************************


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]