[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HTTPCLIENT-731?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12562634#action_12562634
]
Roland Weber commented on HTTPCLIENT-731:
-----------------------------------------
Hello Archie,
support for interrupts is lacking in HttpClient 3.1 connection management all
over the place. We don't have an InterruptedException in the connection manager
interface, so we are mapping those exceptions to timeout exceptions. Have a
look at HTTPCLIENT-633 to learn of another case.
HttpClient 3.1 is in maintenance mode, bug fixes only. Screwed design is bad,
but not a bug. Documenting the behavior is a good idea, but I don't see a point
in trying to change it. The issues of HTTPCLIENT-633 are already fixed in
HttpClient 4.0 trunk and iirc the TimeoutController was a workaround for
implementing connection timeouts on 1.2 JVMs which is no longer needed in the
new codebase. Actually, it is not even needed in the old codebase if you're on
Java 1.4 or later. There is some reflection magic that should use the timeout
threads only when there is no Socket constructor that supports timeouts:
http://hc.apache.org/httpclient-3.x/apidocs/org/apache/commons/httpclient/protocol/DefaultProtocolSocketFactory.html#createSocket(java.lang.String,%20int,%20java.net.InetAddress,%20int,%20org.apache.commons.httpclient.params.HttpConnectionParams)
I fail to see why converting an interrupt to an IOException is less bogus than
converting it to a TimeoutException. Would it help you if the TimeoutException
had a "thread interrupted" message that you could check for?
cheers,
Roland
> Interrupting a connecting HTTP request thread incorrectly becomes a timeout
> exception
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HTTPCLIENT-731
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HTTPCLIENT-731
> Project: HttpComponents HttpClient
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: HttpClient
> Affects Versions: 3.1 Final
> Environment: Java 1.5 Linux
> Reporter: Archie Cobbs
> Attachments: HTTPCLIENT-731.2.txt, HTTPCLIENT-731.txt
>
>
> Consider this logic in {{TimeoutController.java}}:
> {noformat}
> public static void execute(Thread task, long timeout) throws
> TimeoutException {
> task.start();
> try {
> task.join(timeout);
> } catch (InterruptedException e) {
> /* if somebody interrupts us he knows what he is doing */
> }
> if (task.isAlive()) {
> task.interrupt();
> throw new TimeoutException();
> }
> }
> {noformat}
> The effect of this is that if thread A is in the middle of performing an HTTP
> request and happens to be waiting for the socket to connect, and then thread
> B interrupts thread A, thread A will throw a {{TimeoutException}}, even if
> the actual timeout is far off in the future.
> In other words, interrupting a requesting thread that happens to be waiting
> for a socket to connect is incorrectly interpreted as a connection timeout,
> which is incorrect.
> In my application, this causes the client to incorrectly believe the server
> is down, when in actuality some other part of the client is simply trying to
> cancel an outstanding RPC request.
> I realize that invoking {{HttpMethodBase.abort()}} would be a better way to
> abort the RPC request and am working on refactoring my code to do that.
> However, this "translation" of a thread interruption into a timeout event is
> still incorrect. Furthermore, this behavior is undocumented AFAICT.
> Suggestion for improvement: Convert thread interruptions into the equivalent
> of {{abort()}} and document this behavior.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
