DO NOT REPLY [Bug 34942] - [VFS] no vfs_cache cleanup after ant task completed

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 34942] - [VFS] no vfs_cache cleanup after ant task completed

Bugzilla from bugzilla@apache.org
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=34942>.
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=34942


[hidden email] changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|FIXED                       |




------- Additional Comments From [hidden email]  2005-05-28 05:18 -------
Hi Mario,

I decided to build VFS from source so I could test it out sooner than later.  It
seems that your fix did work for the limited testcase!  Unfortunately, I've
found a further issue.  If the <ant/>, <subant/>, or <antcall/> is used, VFS
fails to delete the "vfs_cache" directory.  Must be, somehow, losing track of
the "buildFinished" listener when said tasks are used to call the build rather
than being run directly from the command line.  Not sure if this is a bug in Ant
or VFS?  In any case, I'm uploading an updated testcase with three new targets
to call: "use-ant", "use-subant", and "use-antcall".  You'll be able to
reproduce this issue when calling any of those targets.

Another quirk I noticed with the existing testcase, is that if the "vfs_cache"
directory already exists with a file in there, the "vfs_cache" directory will
remain in place, although the file being manipulated in the current session is
successfully deleted.  Not sure if this is expected behavior or not.  I suppose
it may be the safe thing to do in the case where someone might have happened to
create a "vfs_cache" directory that was used to store other stuff and VFS is
simply being safe in not deleting that directory if it has files that VFS didn't
create in the current session.  Is that the purpose?  You might think about
renaming "vfs_cache" to some randomly generated directory name or at least some
name that no one in their right mind would create themselves.  Thoughts?

Updated testcase coming up...


Jake

--
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: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]