> On 2012-01-31 22:08:10, Alejandro Abdelnur wrote:
> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/oozie/trunk/core/src/main/java/org/apache/oozie/action/hadoop/ShellMain.java,
> >  line 201
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/3708/diff/2/?file=71463#file71463line201>
> >
> >     Why not using os.writeln(line) instead of adding '\n'?
> 
> Mohammad Islam wrote:
>     that was the original code. The bug was : oozie wrote all key=value in 
> the same line. Although the application is writing into different lines.
>     
>     'line' doesn't contain "\n". that's why it is writing into the same line. 
> The property loader reads each line as one key=value. In this case, multiple 
> key=value should in different line.
>     Therefore, we need to write as the user application is writing.  
>     
>
> 
> Alejandro Abdelnur wrote:
>     My bad, but instead adding '\n' the BufferedWriter.newLine() method could 
> be used and that will use the line separator of the platform.

yes. I got the same feedback(use newLine) from Virag. that is better choice.
I will do that.


- Mohammad


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/3708/#review4713
-----------------------------------------------------------


On 2012-01-31 20:47:57, Mohammad Islam wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/3708/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated 2012-01-31 20:47:57)
> 
> 
> Review request for oozie.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> Shell action doesn't capture multiple key-value pairs
> 
> 
> This addresses bug OOZIE-665.
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OOZIE-665
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/oozie/trunk/core/src/main/java/org/apache/oozie/action/hadoop/ShellMain.java
>  1238106 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/3708/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mohammad
> 
>

Reply via email to