https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48643
--- Comment #3 from Sebb <s...@apache.org> 2010-01-31 03:23:42 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #0) > > Note: these bugs were detected by the Eclipse compiler. > > I think it is pointless to try to please Eclipse IDE here. That "possible null > access check" is an optional feature (off by default), depends on the version > of IDE that you are using, and also buggy at times It's not a question of trying to 'please' Eclipse. It has reported a possible error; in this case manual inspection shows that it was correct to do so. > Back to the code: I'll agree that you are right that first oos.close(); is > actually never called, but I do not think we need to close fos here. In which case I think the try catch block can be removed entirely. > I do not see what can fail in the "new ObjectOutputStream(new > BufferedOutputStream(fos))" line, besides maybe an OutOfMemoryError. Agreed. So why try to close oos? > As of now, the code is easier to read, even if it is redundant. Disagree - it's confusing to have code that cannot be executed. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
