https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64542
--- Comment #9 from Arjohn Kampman ---
Great, thank you.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@p
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64542
PJ Fanning changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64542
Dominik Stadler changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO
--
You are receiving this
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64542
--- Comment #7 from PJ Fanning ---
Thanks for the patch but could you add a unit test?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscr
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64542
--- Comment #6 from Arjohn Kampman ---
Created attachment 37322
--> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37322&action=edit
Patch for POIFS ticket 64542
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
--
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64542
--- Comment #5 from PJ Fanning ---
Feel free to submit a patch.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubs
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64542
--- Comment #4 from Arjohn Kampman ---
Do you want me to supply a patch for this? Looks pretty simple to add.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
--
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64542
--- Comment #3 from PJ Fanning ---
Yes - a third constructor - that allows the existing constructors to retain
their existing behaviours - makes sense.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64542
--- Comment #2 from Arjohn Kampman ---
Hi PJ,
I have tried the wrapper approach, but unfortunately the close() method is
declared "final" in superclass AbstractInterruptibleChannel.
Maybe a third constructor variant for FileChannel would be a
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64542
--- Comment #1 from PJ Fanning ---
Hi Arjohn,
I'm not sure this is an easy change and the code has been like this for a long
time - so there are risks that people rely on the behaviour as it is.
You might be able to wrap your FileChannel with
10 matches
Mail list logo
