Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
Sorry, could not mark as Enhancement, would be great if you could fix that for
me.
Original comment by flur0w...@gmail.com
on 7 Nov 2011 at 8:41
I just tested it, you can put in an IP address and it will connect. You just
have to convert it to a string. Eg
bot.connect("89.16.176.16");
Connects to one of Freenode's IRC servers. Creating overrides accepting
InetAddresses will just complicate things more
Original comment by Lord.Qua...@gmail.com
on 9 Nov 2011 at 1:02
I want to see if you'll take a look at this again, I don't think this is true
what you're saying. What you said is for when you want to connect to a remote
IP address. What this was requesting was the ability to choose what local IP
address the socket is bound to.
The requested change would be to allow us to pass in, in some way, the local
address that we want the socket to bind to.
The example I have is that my server has 4 different IP addresses assign to it:
172.16.1.59
172.16.1.60
172.16.1.61
172.16.1.62
.59 is my default IP address, this is what it will bind to in the current code.
What I would prefer to have is the ability to specify the localaddress that
gets passed into the connect function. If you look at lines 317 and 319 of
PircBotX.java, you could modify the two functions there to use the version that
allows you to specify the local address. Both SocketFactory.CreateSocket() and
Socket() have versions that allow this.
Any chance you can reopen this and implement it?
Original comment by rpast...@contre.us
on 16 Feb 2012 at 10:05
Ah, I didn't think that's what you meant. That does seem useful those who have
multi-homed servers
While I would of preferred to make you pass in a socket factory or something
apparently there's not an easily available one that's provided by default with
the JDK.
I decided to use the inetAddress that's already in the bot to represent the
local address of the socket. If you set it with setInetAddress before
connecting the socket will be created there
Added in Revision 80583f49180e
Original comment by Lord.Qua...@gmail.com
on 17 Feb 2012 at 2:08
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
flur0w...@gmail.com
on 7 Nov 2011 at 8:40