Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: domain of joerg.heinicke@gmx.de
 designates 213.165.64.20 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <41D5C861.3040609@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 22:45:05 +0100
From: Joerg Heinicke <joerg.heinicke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041217
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: svn commit: r123799 -
      /cocoon/branches/BRANCH_2_1_X/src/blocks/repository/java/org/apache/co
     coon/components/repository/SourceRepositoryImpl.java
References: <20041231151259.90977.qmail@minotaur.apache.org>
    <41D58936.7030906@gmx.de>
 <34443.10.0.0.5.1104515215.squirrel@www.agssa.net>
In-Reply-To: <34443.10.0.0.5.1104515215.squirrel@www.agssa.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 31.12.2004 18:46, Antonio Gallardo wrote:

>>>                 while (iter.hasNext()) {
>>>-                    Source child = null;
>>>-                    try {
>>>-                        status = remove((Source) iter.next());
>>>-                        if (status != STATUS_OK) {
>>>-                            return status;
>>>-                        }
>>>-                    }
>>>-                    finally {
>>>-                        if (child != null) {
>>>-                            m_resolver.release(child);
>>
>>------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>
>>>-                        }
>>>+                    status = remove((Source) iter.next());
>>>+                    if (status != STATUS_OK) {
>>>+                        return status;
>>>                     }
>>>                 }
>>>             }
>>
>>What about releasing the Source's??
> 
> 
> 'child' is always = null. The condition never happen to be true. Then it
> is unnecesary code.

Ah, yes, from the code it does not behave differently than before. But I 
guess it has been buggy before too. It should probably read:

while (iter.hasNext()) {
     Source child = null;
     try {
         child = (Source) iter.next();
         status = remove(child);
         if (status != STATUS_OK) {
             return status;
         }
     } finally {
         if (child != null) {
             m_resolver.release(child);
         }
     }
}

This was what I had in mind when claiming about the missing release of 
the sources. Maybe somebody else (the original author?) can review it.

Joerg