On 7 September 2011 14:24, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 8:45 AM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 7 September 2011 13:26, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Should LockableFileWriter.close() be changed from: >> > >> > public void close() throws IOException { >> > try { >> > out.close(); >> > } finally { >> > lockFile.delete(); >> > } >> > >> > to: >> > >> > public boolean close() throws IOException { >> > try { >> > out.close(); >> > } finally { >> > return lockFile.delete(); >> > } >> > >> > ? >> >> That will break binary compatibility - the return type is part of the >> method signature. >> >> So no, unless the method is new. >> >> There's an IO JIRA about this somewhere. >> > > You must be thinking of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IO-216 > > The question becomes: should the change I suggest be slated for 3.0 (I > assume that 3.0 would be for a binary incompatible release)?
I don't think it's worth breaking binary compat. just for this, but if there are other worthwhile changes then fine. > Gary > > > >> >> > Gary >> > >> > -- >> > E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] >> > JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: http://s.apache.org/rl >> > Spring Batch in Action: http://s.apache.org/HOq >> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >> > Home: http://garygregory.com/ >> > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> > > > -- > E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] > JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: http://s.apache.org/rl > Spring Batch in Action: http://s.apache.org/HOq > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
