* Dave Baker <dbkr at freenetproject.org> [2007-03-01 13:41:52]:
> On Thursday 01 March 2007 12:48:44 Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> > * Dave Baker <dbkr at freenetproject.org> [2007-03-01 09:24:25]:
> > > On Wednesday 28 February 2007 22:51:25 nextgens at freenetproject.org
> > > wrote:
> > > > Author: nextgens
> > > > Date: 2007-02-28 22:51:25 +0000 (Wed, 28 Feb 2007)
> > > > New Revision: 11936
> > > >
> > > > Modified:
> > > > trunk/freenet/src/freenet/config/PersistentConfig.java
> > > > Log:
> > > > Doh!
> > >
> > > Hang on - could somebody explain what's going on with these three
> > > commits? As I see it, we start by catching an exception that's only
> > > caused by class changes and lack of a rebuild from clean (and by looking
> > > at the code it looks like it would wipe the config file).
> >
> > Indeed : not a real problem.
> >
> > > Then after that, it gets 'fixed', but rather than jnust reverting the
> > > commit, we iterate a different way (well, okay, whatever),
> >
> > Yep, we iterate more efficiently now.
> >
> > > but what worries me is that it has all the synchronisation
> > > removed. Was the synchronised {} block unnecessary? If so, why?
> >
> > Cause the whole method is declared as synchronized so getting a
> > lock on (this) is useless :)
>
> Ah, I see. Fair enough. Can I persuade you to put things like this in the
> commit log message so people like me don't get confused? :)
>
>
> Dave
Sure, next time I will do :)
NextGen$
