Hello Mike,
I think closing the output stream first is the right thing to do.
Someone might want to send a shutdown notification to the
server before stopping to receive, e.g. for SSL connections.
regards,
Roland
Michael Becke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
01.09.2003 21:16
Please respond to "Commons HttpClient Project"
To: "Commons HttpClient Project"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: Re: A bug?
Yes, this is a good point. We might as well be as thorough as possible.
The only real change that might make sense in reversing the order in
which streams are closed. Is sounds like Yue would like to have the
output stream closed before the input. Anyone have objections to this?
Mike
On Monday, September 1, 2003, at 07:46 AM, Roland Weber wrote:
> Michael Becke wrote:
>
>> Any thoughts on why we close the streams and then the socket?
>
> Someone might have implemented sockets with buffered streams.
> Closing only the socket directly would not dispose of the buffers.
> Given the SocketFactory stuff, that possibility shouldn't be ruled out.
>
> just my thoughts :-)
> Roland
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
