On 14/07/2011 16:11, Pid wrote: > On 14/07/2011 15:23, Christopher Schultz wrote: >> All, >> >> Is there any interest in having a configuration option for WCL that >> allows certain thread names to be ignored during webapp shutdown? >> >> See http://markmail.org/message/vqeeyosbqxq3tim6 for a short discussion. >> >> It appears that there may sometimes be a race condition where the webapp >> can't force the termination of an app-started thread that *will* >> eventually shut down. A minor change could alleviate printing a warning >> message on redeploy that may worry admins. >> >> I'm sure this would be useful to Terence, but I'm not sure if there's >> wide applicability. > > Why does this help? AFAICS he's not stopped the thread, he's just > stopped the scheduler. If he wants the thread to stop he'll have to hit > .cancel() on the task.
Actually, that might not be true. (Teach me to skim the docs). The OP is really reporting that the timer.cancel() method doesn't block & wait for all the running timer task threads to finish. Interrupting a timer task thread might not be possible without jumping through hoops; the OP reports that if the run method is empty, there's no problem - but this would be expected because the run() cycle would be short & therefore the timer task thread will win the race between contextDestroyed completing & the thread finishing. If the thread takes longer (the OP reports ~0.5s) then contextDestroyed() wins and Tomcat reports threads down. Quartz suffers from the same problem (or did last time I looked). p
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
