Re: [Wicket-user] [ wicket-Patches-1562130 ] File descriptor leak in URLResourceStream

2006-12-03 Thread Sebastiaan van Erk
I'd say that a file descriptor leak is not an option in any case. The code I supplied tests to see if something is a JarURLConnection and get's the URL to the jar file itself if this is the case. You can then test if THAT url is modified. This is what the JarURLConnection does anyway, so you

Re: [Wicket-user] [ wicket-Patches-1562130 ] File descriptor leak in URLResourceStream

2006-12-03 Thread Johan Compagner
its already in for 2.0 en 1.3 On 12/3/06, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd say that a file descriptor leak is not an option in any case. The code I supplied tests to see if something is a JarURLConnection and get's the URL to the jar file itself if this is the case. You can

Re: [Wicket-user] [ wicket-Patches-1562130 ] File descriptor leak in URLResourceStream

2006-11-27 Thread Jean-Baptiste Quenot
* Johan Compagner: So instead of opening a connection inside the jar we just open a connection to the jar only. That would work for the app servers that uses the jar url connection but it won't help for example WebLogic and others. Because they use there own kind of thing.. We need to

Re: [Wicket-user] [ wicket-Patches-1562130 ] File descriptor leak in URLResourceStream

2006-11-27 Thread Johan Compagner
No we as a framework should think about ALL users not MOST users. And we have quit a lot OSGI users as far as i know. And we should work in that environment as good as we can. So we need to check jars. And besides that we don't know it everytime that it is a jar.. It is just and url.. johan

Re: [Wicket-user] [ wicket-Patches-1562130 ] File descriptor leak in URLResourceStream

2006-11-27 Thread Eelco Hillenius
We need a default that works for most users and via options something that works for all. If we have something that by default works for all, that's all the better. Eelco On 11/27/06, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No we as a framework should think about ALL users not MOST users.