2011/4/8 Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>: > 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?
This one (combined with yours): http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1073393 > but there is only one > file to delete in each case: Interesting. So it never deletes inner classes... (but nobody reported any problems) Best regards, Konstantin Kolinko --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
