In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Matthew Tuck) wrote:
> Patrick Beard wrote:
>
> > Now that this has been fixed, the correct Close() method will get called
> > upon destruction, so we don't absolutely require explicit calls to
> > Close(), but I would agree with others that it is good programming
> > practice to use explicit Close() calls, as it leads to fewer surprises.
>
> I agree, and in line with that, it would be nice if closes within a
> destructor caused an warning, so the client code could be fixed.
>
> However, from what I understand of what I've read, it appears there is
> no method for determining whether a stream is already closed, so it
> seems this is probably not possible.
I just realized that we have TWO implementations of file streams, one in
XPCOM (nsFileStream.cpp) and one in Necko (nsFileStreams.cpp), and the
bug I mentioned was in the Necko version (same author?). The changes
recently made in the XPCOM version look wrong to me, we should
definitely do the close in the destructor if it hasn't been done already.
As far as knowing whether a file has been closed, it should be safe to
call Close() multiple times, that is to say, the method should be
"idempotent."
- Patrick
--
// Patrick C. Beard
// Netscape Communications
