https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60319
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60319
--- Comment #3 from Mark Thomas ---
I've committed a fix to trunk. The code isn't much simpler but the behaviour
should be simpler for users to follow. Back-ports to follow shortly.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60319
--- Comment #2 from Mark Thomas ---
The problem with the exception approach is that we don't necessarily know that
an external executor is going to be configured at the point the setters are
called.
I agree that simpler is good. I want to look
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60319
--- Comment #1 from Christopher Schultz ---
I might even throw an exception.
For TC9, I think we can even remove these getters/setters on the
itself, unless the consensus is that configuration-convenience trumps
simplicity (of the code).
If
