RFC: Netx - implement -Xclearcache command line option

[Omair Majid]

On 10/07/2010 05:33 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> On 17:39 Wed 06 Oct     , Omair Majid wrote:
>
> snip...
>
>>>
>>> Does it have to be called R and not 'translate' or something more readable?
>>>
>>
>> I am sure we can change it to something more sensible. I was just
>> sticking with what the rest of Netx uses (there is already a R function
>> in the same class). Still, I would like to handle that in a separate
>> patch if it is ok.
>>
>> BTW, I am sure you know that a lot of programs use _ as the translate
>> function. Is _ a valid java identifier? ;)
>>
>
> Yeah, you can use '_', I just checked.  I presume you could also use $ but that's usually
> reserved for autogenerated code.
>
> I agree this is something to fix in a different patch.  I'm not too familiar
> with the NetX code so these things come as a surprise to me :-)
>
>>>>> Should we really be catching IOExceptions rather than allowing them to propogate?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Catching IOExceptions is just ignoring the errors. So the question is do
>>>> we want to ignore the errors and continue on or should we stop if we hit
>>>> any errors. Since the lock file is meant to stop a race condition
>>>> (between deleting jars and using them) which is not likely to happen, I
>>>> think an error in lock file creation should be ignored. If for some
>>>> reason a lock file can not be created, Netx should not abort running the
>>>> application. If you dont think this makes sense, please let me know and
>>>> I will change it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That sounds sensible.  I'm just always wary of catch blocks.  I've seen them
>>> used all too often to mask exceptions instead of handling them (including in
>>> example code used by lecturers!)
>>>
>>
>> Heh. That's true. I think checked exceptions even (sort of) encourage
>> this. I am afraid of swallowing exceptions too (or worse, handling them
>> at the wrong level), but in this particular instance it makes sense to
>> do just that.
>>
>
> Yeah I agree on that score.
>
>> Thanks for looking over the changes.
>>
>
> No problem, please commit to the usual quartet of code trees.
>

Thanks. Pushed to icedtea6 HEAD for now. I am going to backport it after 
it gets a little more testing.

Omair,
Omair