Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>
> I also put closeQuietly back into the tests. Without the try-finally and
> closeQuietly, a test failure was hidden by other errors. This emphasises
> the value of the usage pattern to me.
(non-binding) +1 to retaining closeQuietly.
michael
On 3/7/06, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let me know if you still have issues, as I'd like to release.
No issues. I still have my opinions but until I've conqured the world
don't let that hold anything up. :-)
--
Sandy McArthur
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest."
- Thom
I made some more adjustments to your checkin. In particular I put the
example code back in. I am choosing not to mention garbage collection,
as I don't trust our users not to complain. (If a particular user knows
enough to leave it to gc then they don't need to docs anyway)
I also put closeQui
Your patch got lost, but perhaps you could commit it and then I'll review.
I think I agree with most of your points, but I still want to be able to
manually close the iterator, and to have a closeQuietly to help with
that (closeQuietly is [io] style)
Stephen
Sandy McArthur wrote:
Attached
Attached is the changed I'd make. If no one objects to those changes I
can commit it myself.
On 3/5/06, Sandy McArthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/5/06, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sandy McArthur wrote:
> > >>>I don't think LineIterator should have a finalizer method a
On 3/5/06, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sandy McArthur wrote:
> >>>I don't think LineIterator should have a finalizer method and I
> >>>believe the JavaDocs in that class about resource leaks are wrong and
> >>>unnecessarily alarming.
> How is the javadoc over the top? I'll ha
