2014-03-21 17:46 GMT+04:00 <schu...@apache.org>: > Author: schultz > Date: Fri Mar 21 13:46:53 2014 > New Revision: 1579941 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1579941 > Log: > Updated votes. > > Modified: > tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt > > Modified: tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt > URL: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt?rev=1579941&r1=1579940&r2=1579941&view=diff > ============================================================================== > --- tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt (original) > +++ tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt Fri Mar 21 13:46:53 2014 > @@ -36,45 +36,22 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT: > +1: markt, kkolinko > -1: schultz: The idea of the patch is fine: I'm actually +1. > I have some small nits: > - 1. DocumentBuilderFactory is not thread-safe, and shouldn't > - be shared. 2. Two instances of swallowing IOException > + 2. Two instances of swallowing IOException > when closing File streams. We should at least log a warning. > - It looks like there is an opportinity to use StringBuilder > - instead of StringBuffer, there, too, if you want. > + The case of InputStream vs OutputStream is not relevant: > + a stream left open should be logged. Honestly, it will > + pretty much never happen, but that's no excuse not to log > + a potential problem.
1) Is your vote still -1, or -0, or +0? 2) If inputStream.close() fails it does not mean that the stream is left open. Also no data is lost (unlike outputStream). Anyway it cannot be a warning. It can be a debug message at best. Best regards, Konstantin Kolinko --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
