On 18/12/2014 07:31, Konstantin Kolinko wrote: > 2014-12-18 1:48 GMT+03:00 <ma...@apache.org>: >> Author: markt >> Date: Wed Dec 17 22:48:48 2014 >> New Revision: 1646359 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1646359 >> Log: >> Remove code highlighted as unused by UCDetector >> >> Modified: >> tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache/coyote/Response.java >> >> Modified: tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache/coyote/Response.java >> URL: >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache/coyote/Response.java?rev=1646359&r1=1646358&r2=1646359&view=diff >> ============================================================================== >> --- tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache/coyote/Response.java (original) >> +++ tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache/coyote/Response.java Wed Dec 17 22:48:48 >> 2014 >> @@ -132,10 +132,6 @@ public final class Response { >> this.req=req; >> } >> >> - public OutputBuffer getOutputBuffer() { >> - return outputBuffer; >> - } >> - >> >> public void setOutputBuffer(OutputBuffer outputBuffer) { >> this.outputBuffer = outputBuffer; >> > > > Is it a good idea to remove getter method, while setter method is > there and not removed?
The setter is used, the getter isn't and it isn't a field configured by reflection. I think it is a good idea to remove code we are never going to use but I take the point that this change looks odd. > I am -0 on this (technically it has not broken anything yet to be a > veto, but it looks as a wrong change to me). If you'd prefer me to revert this change, I'm happy to do so. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
