Thanks for the feedback Daniel. I think you may be right about adding
the code to the factory - it may be a more elegant solution than adding
it to SocketClient.
Cheers
Rory
Daniel F. Savarese wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rory Winston writes:
I knwo you said that you were going to have a look at adding connect
timeout functionality to FTPClient. I had some spare time today, and I
decided to see if I could give it a go on the 2.0 branch. However, I
Sorry. I plum forgot. Thanks for taking it on.
would be grateful if you could give it an eyeball and see if you think
it is an acceptable solution. I have made changes to SocketClient and
added a simple test case.
The changes could be moved into the socket factory with
SocketClient.setConnectTimeout being a passthrough to the factory's
setConnectTimeout. That way, no extra code has to be added to
other places where a factory is used in a SocketClient subclass, such as
such as when FTPClient establishes a passive mode data connection. But
that's just a first impression that could be off base.
With or without that, I think it's safe to change
if (connectTimeout == DEFAULT_CONNECT_TIMEOUT)
_socket_.connect(new InetSocketAddress(hostname, port));
else
_socket_.connect(new InetSocketAddress(hostname, port), connectTimeout);
to simply:
_socket_.connect(new InetSocketAddress(hostname, port), connectTimeout);
because
_socket_.connect(new InetSocketAddress(hostname, port));
has the same effect as:
_socket_.connect(new InetSocketAddress(hostname, port), 0);
daniel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
