----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:51 PM
Subject: cvs commit:
jakarta-tomcat-connectors/coyote/src/java/org/apache/coyote/tomcat5
CoyoteConnector.java
> costin 2003/03/07 22:51:34
>
> Modified: coyote/src/java/org/apache/coyote/tomcat5
> CoyoteConnector.java
> Log:
> A bit more flexibility in starting ( init/start may end up beeing called
twice,
> that shouldn't be treated as a catastrophic event ).
>
> Improved self-registration. My understanding is that we only need an
Engine,
> so if no Service exists, just go to the engine.
>
> Revision Changes Path
> 1.17 +54 -21
jakarta-tomcat-connectors/coyote/src/java/org/apache/coyote/tomcat5/CoyoteCo
nnector.java
>
> Index: CoyoteConnector.java
> ===================================================================
> @@ -1062,11 +1062,12 @@
> * Initialize this connector (create ServerSocket here!)
> */
> public void initialize()
> - throws LifecycleException {
> -
> - if (initialized)
> - throw new LifecycleException
> - (sm.getString("coyoteConnector.alreadyInitialized"));
> + throws LifecycleException
> + {
> + if (initialized) {
> +
log.info(sm.getString("coyoteConnector.alreadyInitialized"));
> + return;
> + }
I'm not sure that I'm happy with this. Throwing an exception seems much
cleaner than logging at a low level and pretending to be happy with
everything.
This isn't a veto, since I haven't looked into the callers enough (yet) to
know what changes. But it is a very big red-flag.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
