After reading through the weekend, validating against CN as a fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further concerns with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with GEODE-5338. Sai [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <sai.boorlaga...@gmail.com> wrote: > Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation is good and needed > more coverage. > > While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found something about JDK's > default implementation of > hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it needs a > rethought. It could result in > implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname validation. > > I will send out details and seek to advise on what we should do in a > different thread. > > Sai > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <amurm...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > >> To summarize where we are right now in this discussion, I see the >> following >> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7: >> >> - GEODE-5615 - ✅ resolved >> - GEODE-5601 - 🏃♀️ in progress >> - GEODE-5594 - 🏃♀️ waiting for PR review >> - GEODE-5338 - 🏃♀️ waiting for PR review >> - GEODE-5619 - 🙄 in progress in JIRA but has merged PR. What does it >> mean? >> >> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7? >> >> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's PRs. Is that >> correct? >> >> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <jde...@pivotal.io> wrote: >> >> > I'd also like to include GEODE-5619 >> > >> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <gz...@pivotal.io> wrote: >> > >> > > +1 >> > > >> > > The release will be a great one with so many historical bugs fixed. >> > > >> > > Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest build.gradle and >> > > recent moved test packages, it worked. So this refactoring is also >> > success. >> > > >> > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > > I most definitely agree! >> > > > >> > > > Anthony >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615 (DistributedTest OOMEs) >> and >> > > > > GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be fixed before >> cutting >> > > the >> > > > > new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't create a release >> > branch >> > > > from >> > > > > a point where we have these systematic issues with our pipeline. >> > > > > >> > > > > -Dan >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
