Christian Theune wrote at 2008-2-4 13:23 +0100:
... + # agroszer: 2008.feb.1.: currently the above seems not to be true + # request will KEEP the response on close() + # even more if a retry occurs in the publisher, + # the response will be LOST, so we must accept the returned request + request = publish(request) + return request.response.getResult() Same comment as previously, please avoid this style of annotation.
I disagree with you. Commenting difficult code passages which can easily be seen as overly complex if one does not look carefully is a *very* good idea. Especially in this case, I find the explanation vital why "response" is recomputed rather than the already known "response" used.
Also, it doesn't look like the issue is actually finally resolved as you say `seems`.
Better specify explicitely when one is not absolute sure.
SVN tracks who edited what and when, the statement of your name and the change date isn't necessary.
But when one looks at the code, it is not easy to find out which SVN revision produced this code -- unless you look through the complete history. Therefore, the who may be helpful in case of questions about the code. -- Dieter