[Box Backup-dev] Fwd: Bandwidth usage patch

[Ben Summers]

I think I agree, let's just stick it in for now. (with the fix)

I'll add it after I've merged the Win32 stuff -- have you taken a  
peek at it recently?

Ben



On 13 Feb 2006, at 10:26, Martin Ebourne wrote:

>
> On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 09:37 +0000, Ben Summers wrote:
>> Pascal has sent me the patch below. While it's not a completely
>> correct solution (as it ignored SSL overhead), shall we add it in to
>> the next release?
>
> Here are my contradictory thoughts on the matter:
>
> - We should be in feature freeze or we'll never get 0.10 out. We don't
> want to end up like Emacs which hasn't had a release in several years.
> They've been "preparing the release" for 18 months and in "feature
> freeze" for a year. Hmm.
>
> - But this patch is quite contained and looks very safe. It's  
> worthwhile
> extra functionality and we don't seem to be in a state to release
> imminently (we will certainly need another release candidate) so  
> I'd put
> it in 0.10.
>
>>> +	try
>>> +	{
>>> +		server.DoServer(context);
>>> +		LogConnectionStats(clientCommonName.c_str(), rStream);
>>> +	}
>>> +	catch(...)
>>> +	{
>>> +		LogConnectionStats(clientCommonName.c_str(), rStream);
>>> +		throw;
>>> +	}
>
> This bit is wrong. If LogConnectionStats throws an exception the last
> thing you want to do is call it again in the catch block. Should look
> like so:
>
>>> +	  try
>>> +	{
>>> +		server.DoServer(context);
>>> +	}
>>> +	catch(...)
>>> +	{
>>> +		LogConnectionStats(clientCommonName.c_str(), rStream);
>>> +		throw;
>>> +	}
>>> +     LogConnectionStats(clientCommonName.c_str(), rStream);
>
> Cheers,
>
> Martin.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Boxbackup-dev mailing list
> Boxbackup-dev@fluffy.co.uk
> http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup-dev