You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@qpid.apache.org by Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org> on 2007/02/23 11:07:38 UTC
[Java] server/txn/DeliveryMessageOperation
Just a quick check while I'm doing my commit log.
I noticed that we don't actually use this class anywhere. Is this the
case? Can we safely delete it?
The fact our tests pass without it in the code base doesn't really say
that much.
Does the original coder know if we need it?
--
Martin Ritchie
Re: [Java] server/txn/DeliveryMessageOperation
Posted by Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org>.
Well I had already deleted it as there were no compile/test issues. As
you say version control allows us to bring it back later. If required.
:D
On 23/02/07, Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On a general note - I aggressively delete unused and commented-out code
> as it just adds to the mental overhead as people puzzle thru it only to
> figure out it does nothing. When I get too agressive - well that's what
> version control repositories are for :)
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.
>
> Martin Ritchie wrote:
> > That was my thought
> >
> > On 23/02/07, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> Martin Ritchie wrote:
> >> > Just a quick check while I'm doing my commit log.
> >> >
> >> > I noticed that we don't actually use this class anywhere. Is this the
> >> > case? Can we safely delete it?
> >> >
> >> > The fact our tests pass without it in the code base doesn't really say
> >> > that much.
> >>
> >> Unless it is being instantiated by reflection, which I think is highly
> >> unlikely (I'm not familiar with the code to rule that out for sure), the
> >> fact that everything compiles without it is a safe sign it isn't used.
> >>
> >> > Does the original coder know if we need it?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
--
Martin Ritchie
Re: [Java] server/txn/DeliveryMessageOperation
Posted by Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com>.
On a general note - I aggressively delete unused and commented-out code
as it just adds to the mental overhead as people puzzle thru it only to
figure out it does nothing. When I get too agressive - well that's what
version control repositories are for :)
Cheers,
Alan.
Martin Ritchie wrote:
> That was my thought
>
> On 23/02/07, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Martin Ritchie wrote:
>> > Just a quick check while I'm doing my commit log.
>> >
>> > I noticed that we don't actually use this class anywhere. Is this the
>> > case? Can we safely delete it?
>> >
>> > The fact our tests pass without it in the code base doesn't really say
>> > that much.
>>
>> Unless it is being instantiated by reflection, which I think is highly
>> unlikely (I'm not familiar with the code to rule that out for sure), the
>> fact that everything compiles without it is a safe sign it isn't used.
>>
>> > Does the original coder know if we need it?
>>
>>
>
>
Re: [Java] server/txn/DeliveryMessageOperation
Posted by Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org>.
That was my thought
On 23/02/07, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Martin Ritchie wrote:
> > Just a quick check while I'm doing my commit log.
> >
> > I noticed that we don't actually use this class anywhere. Is this the
> > case? Can we safely delete it?
> >
> > The fact our tests pass without it in the code base doesn't really say
> > that much.
>
> Unless it is being instantiated by reflection, which I think is highly
> unlikely (I'm not familiar with the code to rule that out for sure), the
> fact that everything compiles without it is a safe sign it isn't used.
>
> > Does the original coder know if we need it?
>
>
--
Martin Ritchie
Re: [Java] server/txn/DeliveryMessageOperation
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
Martin Ritchie wrote:
> Just a quick check while I'm doing my commit log.
>
> I noticed that we don't actually use this class anywhere. Is this the
> case? Can we safely delete it?
>
> The fact our tests pass without it in the code base doesn't really say
> that much.
Unless it is being instantiated by reflection, which I think is highly
unlikely (I'm not familiar with the code to rule that out for sure), the
fact that everything compiles without it is a safe sign it isn't used.
> Does the original coder know if we need it?