DO NOT REPLY [Bug 35181] - [net] FTP timestamp: year recognition

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

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 35181] - [net] FTP timestamp: year recognition

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=35181>.
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=35181





------- Additional Comments From [hidden email]  2005-06-05 22:45 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
>> The current implementation is more "accurate" but at the cost of being
> completely intolerant of "slop".
>
> I could for example, without too much trouble, recode this so that any server
> timestamps that appear to be more than one day in the future be considered last
> year.  

I have had a go at testing this idea.  It breaks our JUnit tests, but that's
just because the JUnit tests were written with a "no-slop" approach.  Since I'm
having trouble deciding whether it's a good thing or a bad thing to allow for
"slop", maybe that's a sign that we need a "slop-mode" option in FTPClientConfig
(probably named differently)?  Perhaps something similar to how
SimpleDateFormat.isLenient() exists because one size does not fit all?

--
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]