Very much agreed. I also think I was way off....I missed the close() override on the underlying stream.
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Cameron McCormack <c...@mcc.id.au> wrote: > Thomas DeWeese: > > > Really in my mind the main issue is that you should be able to call > > > flush whenever you want and not cause real havok which isn't the > > > case without the proposed patch. > > jonathan wood: > > I agree...why the "closed" underlying stream allows modification seems a > bit > > perverse. > > I agree with both of those points. The simple fix of not writing a zero > length IDAT chunk when flush() is called seems best to me. > > -- > Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-users-unsubscr...@xmlgraphics.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: batik-users-h...@xmlgraphics.apache.org > >
