Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> Ok, I just wanted to be sure that we also test that revert before
> introducing the FileCleaner. I've not anything against FileCleaner
> itself, but [...]
Hey, I wrote that code myself, it has been tested for years, and *I* don't
want to introduce it at this point in the release process if we can avoid
it. :-) So you can say that we are in violent agreement. :-)
> I prefer to really fix the bug instead of relying on a thread to
> workaround it
Yes, for this sort of situation, we ought to, and ought to be able to, do
our own cleanup. However, I seem to recall that one situation the
FileCleaner can handle that won't be handled just by Exception handling is
cleaning up if the process is terminated while writing to the temporary
file.
> if even with SharedFileInputStream it works fine imho we can keep it
there.
I'll put that code back for the next test, which will revert most of the
changes except for the Exception handling. I'm reviewing a diff between RC1
and current v2.3 code. We'll want to review that sort of diff when we
decide to create RC2.
Do you plan to backport fixes for JAMES-584?
> What's the plan now?
> Do you plan to commit your current version or have you more tests to do
> before?
Everything I have is in svn except for commenting out the FileCleaner.
> Imho all new exception handling must be applied to both branches.
Yes.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
