Karen Tung wrote:
> Hi Jean,
>
> Thank you for making the change.  I have one more comment about the code.
>
> I think it is better to just get rid of lines 61-63.  Then, in line 
> 583, just assign rv to be 2.
> That way, the "finally" clause will take care of the shutting down of 
> the logging system.
> The work of logging shutdown will be done in only 1 spot in the whole 
> DC app.  In case we need
> to change how logging is shutdown in the future, we don't need to 
> worry about modifying
> all the different places.
Done.

Jean
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Karen
>
> Jean McCormack wrote:
>> I've updated the webrev with Karen's suggestions.
>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~jeanm/slim_4352_4354/
>>
>> Jean
>>
>>
>> Karen Tung wrote:
>>> Jean McCormack wrote:
>>>> Please review the following webrev for defects 4352 & 4354
>>>>
>>>> Defects:
>>>> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=4352
>>>> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=4354
>>>>
>>>> Webrev:
>>>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~jeanm/slim_4352_4354/
>>>>
>>>> Jean
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> caiman-discuss mailing list
>>>> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org
>>>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
>>>>   
>>> Hi Jean,
>>>
>>> Here are my comments:
>>>
>>> distro_const.py, line 51:
>>> - What's changed in this line?  I don't see anything, but it 
>>> indicated that it's changed.
>>>
>>> distro_const.py, line 574:
>>> - While the code works the way it is now,
>>> I am concern about the possibility of information lost by just 
>>> returning 2 for
>>> all the SystemExit.  It's true that right now, the usage() is the 
>>> only thing that returns 2.
>>> What about in the future?  What about other part of the DC code that 
>>> might
>>> call SystemExit() with an error message that we want to see?
>>> IMO, it is more correct to define an exception specific to usage 
>>> related errors,
>>> and catch that exception, assign the appropriate return code, and 
>>> leave SystemExit()
>>> the way it is.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> --Karen
>>
>


Reply via email to