Animesh,

As for my fixes, I agree with you that not all of them are vital. You
pulled only one and this seems too few. There where more null pointers
and uses off  == and more scary things. I have rerouted my efforts to
master now. Again (Hugo end I don't always agree on practical matters,
on principals we usually do) I think it is up to you which ones to
pull. I rember I removed unused local vars. This doesn't seem vital
(or dangerous) but pulling only one seems very few.


On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 7:11 AM, Animesh Chaturvedi
<animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Duffy [mailto:i...@ianduffy.ie]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 6:34 PM
> To: CloudStack Dev
> Subject: RE: Findbugs report on 4.3-forward
>
> Hi Animesh,
>
> Tested all those changes to detail. Those lines were removed due to 
> unexpected behavior that I had not spotted until now.
> [Animesh] That's what my worry is there may be unintended changes. I suspect 
> this one was not from find bugs. Looking at others from Daan there are many 
> formatting changes which are not necessary and hinder review
>
> They were suppose to allow for better fall over between multiple domain 
> controllers, how ever they were causing caching to occur. This meant if a 
> users password was reset in LDAP the old password was still allowing login 
> for a limited time.
>
> Please pull the changes forward,
> Thanks
>
> Ian.
> On 29 Jan 2014 00:07, "Animesh Chaturvedi" <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com>
> wrote:
>
>> If I look at this commit for example
>>
>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commitdiff;
>> h=92b4f66d73562e4211d2d787554ff229dbeb5705
>>
>> It removes the two lines from LdapContextFactory.java
>>
>> environment.put("com.sun.jndi.ldap.read.timeout", "500");-
>> environment.put("com.sun.jndi.ldap.connect.pool", "true");
>>
>> Is that reported by find bug? I don't know this code  so not sure if
>> it is intentional or not ?
>>
>> The point is there may be unintended risks in allowing late changes.
>>
>>
>>

Reply via email to