DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35181>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35181 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-06-05 22:45 ------- (In reply to comment #4) >> The current implementation is more "accurate" but at the cost of being > completely intolerant of "slop". > > I could for example, without too much trouble, recode this so that any server > timestamps that appear to be more than one day in the future be considered > last > year. I have had a go at testing this idea. It breaks our JUnit tests, but that's just because the JUnit tests were written with a "no-slop" approach. Since I'm having trouble deciding whether it's a good thing or a bad thing to allow for "slop", maybe that's a sign that we need a "slop-mode" option in FTPClientConfig (probably named differently)? Perhaps something similar to how SimpleDateFormat.isLenient() exists because one size does not fit all? -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
