On 21/05/2013 23:10, Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
> 2013/5/22 <ma...@apache.org>:
>> Author: markt
>> Date: Tue May 21 20:01:02 2013
>> New Revision: 1484923
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1484923
>> Log:
>> Make deletion of the copied WARs used for anti-resource locking more robust
>> if the context fails to start (there were some circumstances where the
>> original WAR could get deleted).
>> @@ -942,11 +940,8 @@ public class ContextConfig
>> String docBase = context.getDocBase();
>> if (docBase == null)
>> return;
>> - if (originalDocBase == null) {
>> - originalDocBase = docBase;
>> - } else {
>> - docBase = originalDocBase;
>> - }
>> + originalDocBase = docBase;
>> +
>
> 2. Why if(originalDocBase == null) check was removed?
It was part of the rotating the original and modified values. Now we
just keep copies of both it the check is irrelevant.
> 1. This change in 6.0 needs to go through voting
Sorry - I was on automatic pilot when doing my back-ports.
Clearly there is a +1 from me. If two other folks +1 it fairly soon I'll
just leave it. If not, I'll revert it and add it to the status file.
> 2. There is a bug in the above line,
> "docBase" should not be there.
> (Though it never executes, as antiLockingDocBase was created as
> file.getAbsolutePath(),)
> It will allow to simplify this block a bit.
I'll clean that up in trunk and 7.0.x and propose it for 6.0.x.
> 3. Wouldn't it be more simple to have the new field as a File instead of
> String?
> While "docBase" is a String, per API, this field represents a proper file.
Yes. That allows a few more lines to be removed.
Thanks for the review.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
