Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 45958 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2004 23:02:03 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 11 Mar 2004 23:02:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 6120 invoked by uid 500); 11 Mar 2004 23:01:46 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 6065 invoked by uid 500); 11 Mar 2004 23:01:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 6041 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2004 23:01:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.gmx.net) (213.165.64.20) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 11 Mar 2004 23:01:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 3380 invoked by uid 65534); 11 Mar 2004 23:01:46 -0000 Received: from a183069.studnetz.uni-leipzig.de (EHLO gmx.de) (139.18.183.69) by mail.gmx.net (mp005) with SMTP; 12 Mar 2004 00:01:46 +0100 X-Authenticated: #3483660 Message-ID: <4050EFEC.1030709@gmx.de> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 00:02:04 +0100 From: Joerg Heinicke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: de-de, de, en-us, en-gb, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: cocoon-2.1/src/blocks/cron/java/org/apache/cocoon/environment/background BackgroundEnvironment.java References: <20040311153832.72628.qmail@minotaur.apache.org> <4050ADDC.7090309@gmx.de> <4050E0D0.7030202@apache.org> In-Reply-To: <4050E0D0.7030202@apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On 11.03.2004 22:57, Sylvain Wallez wrote: >> quoting Eclipse: "The private field QuartzJobScheduler.jobEnvironment >> is never read locally." >> >> Is it needed? > > Well, if Eclipse says no, I guess it's right ;-) > > Seriously, this refactoring went through several iterations and the > location of the environment move several times: it was initially a > singleton, but I later changed this when I realized that background > request processing can use request attributes, and that therefore a > singleton wasn't suitable. Thanks. I only asked, because the last time I removed such unused code I broke some hidden magic code, because there happened something not obvious. Joerg