[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2517?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15478383#comment-15478383
]
Flavio Junqueira commented on ZOOKEEPER-2517:
---------------------------------------------
It looks mostly good. There are a couple of long lines that I would appreciate
if we could break into multiple.
I'm wondering about the warning on number format exception. If I make a
mistake, then I'll get a warning in my log, but the server will keep going. I
might get an undesired behavior that I'll only realize after a while. Is it
better to propagate the exception rather than just writing the warning?
> jute.maxbuffer is ignored
> -------------------------
>
> Key: ZOOKEEPER-2517
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2517
> Project: ZooKeeper
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 3.5.2
> Reporter: Benjamin Jaton
> Assignee: Arshad Mohammad
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 3.5.3, 3.6.0
>
> Attachments: ZOOKEEPER-2517-01.patch, ZOOKEEPER-2517-02.patch,
> ZOOKEEPER-2517.patch
>
>
> In ClientCnxnSocket.java the parsing of the system property is erroneous:
> {code}packetLen = Integer.getInteger(
> clientConfig.getProperty(ZKConfig.JUTE_MAXBUFFER),
> ZKClientConfig.CLIENT_MAX_PACKET_LENGTH_DEFAULT
> );{code}
> Javadoc of Integer.getInteger states "The first argument is treated as the
> name of a system property", whereas here the value of the property is passed.
> Instead I believe the author meant to write something like:
> {code}packetLen = Integer.parseInt(
> clientConfig.getProperty(
> ZKConfig.JUTE_MAXBUFFER,
> String.valueOf(ZKClientConfig.CLIENT_MAX_PACKET_LENGTH_DEFAULT)
> )
> );{code}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
