[rfc][icedtea-web] TinyHttpdImpl refactor

[Adam Domurad]

On 08/01/2013 11:15 AM, Andrew Azores wrote:
> On 07/30/2013 01:25 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>> On 07/26/2013 05:34 PM, Andrew Azores wrote:
>>> Changelog:
>>> * tests/test-extensions/net/sourceforge/jnlp/TinyHttpdImpl.java
>>> (TinyHttpdImpl): BufferedReader and DataOutputStream become member
>>> variables rather than local to run. More informative/mnemonic
>>> variable names
>>> (writeErrorToPipe): new private method.
>>> (writeToPipe): new private method.
>>> (run): refactored to use writeToPipe and writeErrorToPipe, and
>>> ensuring that streams are closed when no longer in use. More
>>> informative/mnemonic variable names
>>>
>>> The patch looks big (relative to the size of the file) but it's
>>> really almost entirely variable renaming and method extractions. :)
>> Does not, I'm dealyed due to packaging stuff ;( Sorry
>> Practicaly no objections to the code:
>> * The unittests for this are however a must - for new method,
>> constructors and especially for run - to ensure they behave as they
>> behaved before. Not that the backward compatibility is important in
>> tests extensions, but because it worked pretty well.
>> I would rather this patch to be pushed to head only together with
>> unittests, but if you swear, you can push in two pushes.
>>
>>   Thanx for refactoring!
>>     J.
>
> Round two.
>
> Changelog:
> *
> tests/test-extensions-tests/net/sourceforge/jnlp/ServerAccessTest.java:
> moved TinyHttpdImpl tests into new class
> *
> tests/test-extensions-tests/net/sourceforge/jnlp/TinyHttpdImplTest.java:
> new class for testing TinyHttpdImpl specifically
> * tests/test-extensions/net/sourceforge/jnlp/TinyHttpdImpl.java:
> refactored. "port" field removed as it was unused. Server now continues
> to run after an HTTP 404.
> * tests/test-extensions/net/sourceforge/jnlp/ServerLauncher.java:
> removed "port" argument from TinyHttpdImpl constructor call
>
> I decided to undo some of my deeper changes to TinyHttpdImpl since they
> were really done in the first place just to make the code look cleaner
> (not good reasoning...), but I found better ways to clean it up without
> making the reader/writer variables into fields.
>
> Andrew A

I believe you forgot a patch

Cheers,
-Adam