On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 08:32 -0400, Steve Terrell wrote: > Why would the second 'if' be a problem? The first test is to see if > there is already a response stream. The second 'if' is only called when > there is no response stream. In that case, if there is a response body, > then create a stream from it. > > My only change to this code would be to drop the local declaration of > byteResponseStream, and instead use the class instance variable > responseStream. This way, any subsequent calls to > getResponseBodyAsStream would not have to create a new input stream. Of > course, I don't know why you would call this method more than once... >
Steve, All this ugly code we inherited from the 1.0 days is gone in the HttpClient 4.0 branch. Oleg > --Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bala mani [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 7:36 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: found an Error in HttpMethodBase class > > > /** > * Returns the response body of the HTTP method, if any, as an > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > InputStream}. > * If response body is not available, returns <tt>null</tt> > * > * @return The response body or <code>null</code>. > * > * @throws IOException If an I/O (transport) problem occurs while > obtaining the > * response body. > */ > public InputStream getResponseBodyAsStream() throws IOException { > if (responseStream != null) { > return responseStream; > } > if (responseBody != null) { > InputStream byteResponseStream = new > ByteArrayInputStream(responseBody); > LOG.debug("re-creating response stream from byte array"); > return byteResponseStream; > } > return null; > } > > the above code segment is part of the HttpMethodBase class. > on observation we find that the second if is a dead code segment and > what correction is required. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
