Konatantin, On 4/7/2011 9:08 PM, Konstantin Kolinko wrote: > 2011/4/8 <schu...@apache.org>: >> Author: schultz >> Date: Fri Apr 8 00:41:29 2011 >> New Revision: 1090072 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1090072&view=rev >> Log: >> Updated. >> >> Modified: >> tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt >> > >> + >> +* Backport exception logging from revision 1090022 >> + http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1090022 >> + +1: schultz >> + -1: > > Actually it might be not as useful as it might seem. Deletion failures > are reported as boolean return value from delete(), not as an > exception. > It makes sense to backport the relevant change to delete() calls as well, > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1073393
I'm not sure what you mean. The code actually compiles without any try/catch block there at all, since none of the methods called actually throw IOException. I suspect the catch-all block was there to prevent any really weird things from happening and propagating up the stack. The code comment says "delete at much as possible" implying that there is a lot of work to do which might be interrupted, but there is only one file to delete in each case: it either does or does not succeed. What change were you suggesting that I actually backport? The replacement of the duplicate code with a method call? -chris
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
