Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 32401 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2008 11:05:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 23 Jun 2008 11:05:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 30468 invoked by uid 500); 23 Jun 2008 11:01:37 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 30448 invoked by uid 500); 23 Jun 2008 11:01:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: Delivered-To: mailing list derby-dev@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 30433 invoked by uid 99); 23 Jun 2008 11:01:37 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 04:01:37 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2000.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [140.211.11.140] (HELO brutus.apache.org) (140.211.11.140) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:00:55 +0000 Received: from brutus (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by brutus.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09CCE234C147 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 04:00:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2062680924.1214218845038.JavaMail.jira@brutus> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 04:00:45 -0700 (PDT) From: "Kristian Waagan (JIRA)" To: derby-dev@db.apache.org Subject: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-3726) Don't call RAFContainer.padFile() from instances of RAFContainer4 In-Reply-To: <1291756522.1213787925270.JavaMail.jira@brutus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3726?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12607181#action_12607181 ] Kristian Waagan commented on DERBY-3726: ---------------------------------------- The patch looks good to me. I'm not sure we really need the EPOC JVM bug workaround, but it doesn't seem to affect Derby negatively to keep it. +1 to commit. > Don't call RAFContainer.padFile() from instances of RAFContainer4 > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: DERBY-3726 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3726 > Project: Derby > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: Store > Affects Versions: 10.3.3.0, 10.4.1.3 > Reporter: Knut Anders Hatlen > Assignee: Knut Anders Hatlen > Priority: Minor > Attachments: d3726-1a.diff > > > In this thread on derby-dev, http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-dev/200806.mbox/%3c48530848.3020501@sbcglobal.net%3e, > it was mentioned that RAFContainer4 calls padFile() when creating a container. Since padFile() uses old I/O calls and the rest of RAFContainer4 uses NIO, it could possibly cause similar issues as those seen in DERBY-3347. Although we haven't verified that this is a problem, we should try to avoid mixing old I/O and NIO to be on the safe side. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.