DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25592>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25592 An IOException or RuntimeException leaves the underlying socket in an undetermined state ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-12-17 18:31 ------- I agree this is something that we should add. As for where to add it, I'm not sure. We should definitely take care of it in CVS HEAD, but I'm wondering if we should include the connection.close() as part of bug #25370. My thinking being that if we're releasing the connection anyway, what harm will closing it cause? Like Oleg though, I'm quite wary about changing this so late. I suggest we come up with a patch quickly, that we can test in the next few days. If after a few days of testing we feel confident that all is working, we should include it in rc3. If we have any trouble, the change should be backed out and left until after 2.0 final. How does everyone feel about this? For Moh's workaround I think calling connection.close() is probably better than setting via HttpMethodBase#setForceCloseConnection(true). Setting forceClose only closes the connection after the response body has been consumed. Mike --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
