On 21/05/2012 15:26, Costin Manolache wrote: > My understanding is that the timeout is implemented in poll.c maintain() - > by scanning the socket list in C. > > Why not doing the same thing in java - i.e. don't touch native code, have > all sockets 'long', and close whenever you need from java ?
The timeout is also used in poll so it wouldn't be a completely clean solution. It would probably work but there might be some odd edge cases. It think it is probably better - for now - to keep this in native. Mark > > Costin > > On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On 20/05/2012 21:47, Mladen Turk wrote: >>> On 05/20/2012 08:37 PM, Mark Thomas wrote: >>>> Therefore, I intend modifying the APR/native code to support per socket >>>> time outs. I would be grateful if those of you with more C knowledge >>>> than I (which is most people on this list) could: >>>> a) tell me now if this is a crazy idea (and why) >>>> b) keep an extra close eye on any commit of mine that touches the C >> code. >>>> >>> >>> This should be easy to implement. >>> Inside native we track socket_ttl for each socket. >>> Currently when socket is added it's set to apr_time_now() >>> and later compared with max_ttl (usually keepAliveTimeout). >>> >>> We can add new API that would add socket with timeout relative >>> to max_ttl. A bit awkward but wouldn't create backward incompatibility. >>> >>> Take a look at poll.c add function. >>> The new addt would have additional timeout parameter and >>> you would set: >>> ... >>> if (p->max_ttl > 0) >>> p->socket_ttl[p->nelts] = apr_time_now() + J2T(timeout); >>> ... >>> >>> Now that new timeout param would actually be called as >>> Poll.add(pollset, socket, events, perSocketPollTimeout - >> keepAliveTimeout); >>> given that keepAliveTimeout was used for Poll.setTtl(keepAliveTimeout); >>> >>> So effectively socket_ttl would become 'now() - ttlOffset' >> >> Thanks for confirming I am heading in the right direction with this. I'm >> hesitant to follow exactly the path above. While it is a minimal change >> from the current code, I think it could be difficult for folks new to >> the code to figure out what is going on. >> >> I'd like to see if I can come up with a change that will be more obvious >> on first reading. I expect it will be a little more invasive than the >> change you suggested. Depending on my level of confidence, I'll either >> post a patch or commit the change when I have something concrete. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Mark >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
