Re: [FTPSERVER] Ftplets never destroyed
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Jiří Kuhn jiri.k...@clapix.com wrote: My approach can be seen in attached file. I think the patch is fine, could you please attach it to the JIRA issue to clear the license details? https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FTPSERVER-248 /niklas
Re: [FTPSERVER] Ftplets never destroyed
I agree with Jiří that if some one chooses to use a custom Ftplet container, it is their responsibility to implement the appropriate methods (such as init and destroy). All we can do is call the destroy method when we think the server is going down. I don't see any reason why we need to keep track of what Ftplet container is in use and make decisions based on that. Regards, Sai Pullabhotla Phone: (402) 408-5753 Fax: (402) 408-6861 www.jMethods.com On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 1:20 AM, Jiří Kuhn jiri.k...@clapix.com wrote: In my opinion, if we call init(), we should call destroy(). It's clear and logic behaviour. Client may provide an instance of the ftplet container and the server calls methods defined by an interface, why to make a difference if the instance is default one or not. The decision is on a client if the destroy() method should be implemented or empty and the destruction of the provided ftplet container is done somewhere else. The interface defines a contract, if the client breaks it, it will face the consequences itself. At present, if you use everything default, your ftplets are never destroyed(). This is wrong, I think. Jiří Kuhn. 2008/12/19 Niklas Gustavsson nik...@protocol7.com On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Jiří Kuhn jiri.k...@clapix.com wrote: destroy() method on ftplet container is never called. I gues that something like serverContext.getFtpletContainer().destroy(); should be placed somewhere inside DefaultFtpServer.stop() method. Probably right just before serverContext disposition to be, let's say, consistent with init() method. I really wonder that none has noticed it yet. Or am I missing something? I'm aware of this, but unsure how we best handle it. If the user has provided their own FtpletContainer (pretty unlikely but possible), I think the API client should destroy the container itself. However, in most cases, clients will simple add Ftplets to the server, in this case we should destroy on shutdown. So, should we keep track of the fact that we're using our default provided FtpletContainer and only destroy if that's true? /niklas
Re: [FTPSERVER] Ftplets never destroyed
You've convinced me. I just added the change where we always detroy the Ftplets on shutdown. Thanks a lot for the motivations! /niklas 2008/12/22 Sai Pullabhotla sai.pullabho...@jmethods.com: I agree with Jiří that if some one chooses to use a custom Ftplet container, it is their responsibility to implement the appropriate methods (such as init and destroy). All we can do is call the destroy method when we think the server is going down. I don't see any reason why we need to keep track of what Ftplet container is in use and make decisions based on that. Regards, Sai Pullabhotla Phone: (402) 408-5753 Fax: (402) 408-6861 www.jMethods.com On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 1:20 AM, Jiří Kuhn jiri.k...@clapix.com wrote: In my opinion, if we call init(), we should call destroy(). It's clear and logic behaviour. Client may provide an instance of the ftplet container and the server calls methods defined by an interface, why to make a difference if the instance is default one or not. The decision is on a client if the destroy() method should be implemented or empty and the destruction of the provided ftplet container is done somewhere else. The interface defines a contract, if the client breaks it, it will face the consequences itself. At present, if you use everything default, your ftplets are never destroyed(). This is wrong, I think. Jiří Kuhn. 2008/12/19 Niklas Gustavsson nik...@protocol7.com On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Jiří Kuhn jiri.k...@clapix.com wrote: destroy() method on ftplet container is never called. I gues that something like serverContext.getFtpletContainer().destroy(); should be placed somewhere inside DefaultFtpServer.stop() method. Probably right just before serverContext disposition to be, let's say, consistent with init() method. I really wonder that none has noticed it yet. Or am I missing something? I'm aware of this, but unsure how we best handle it. If the user has provided their own FtpletContainer (pretty unlikely but possible), I think the API client should destroy the container itself. However, in most cases, clients will simple add Ftplets to the server, in this case we should destroy on shutdown. So, should we keep track of the fact that we're using our default provided FtpletContainer and only destroy if that's true? /niklas
Re: [FTPSERVER] Ftplets never destroyed
In my opinion, if we call init(), we should call destroy(). It's clear and logic behaviour. Client may provide an instance of the ftplet container and the server calls methods defined by an interface, why to make a difference if the instance is default one or not. The decision is on a client if the destroy() method should be implemented or empty and the destruction of the provided ftplet container is done somewhere else. The interface defines a contract, if the client breaks it, it will face the consequences itself. At present, if you use everything default, your ftplets are never destroyed(). This is wrong, I think. Jiří Kuhn. 2008/12/19 Niklas Gustavsson nik...@protocol7.com On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Jiří Kuhn jiri.k...@clapix.com wrote: destroy() method on ftplet container is never called. I gues that something like serverContext.getFtpletContainer().destroy(); should be placed somewhere inside DefaultFtpServer.stop() method. Probably right just before serverContext disposition to be, let's say, consistent with init() method. I really wonder that none has noticed it yet. Or am I missing something? I'm aware of this, but unsure how we best handle it. If the user has provided their own FtpletContainer (pretty unlikely but possible), I think the API client should destroy the container itself. However, in most cases, clients will simple add Ftplets to the server, in this case we should destroy on shutdown. So, should we keep track of the fact that we're using our default provided FtpletContainer and only destroy if that's true? /niklas
Re: [FTPSERVER] Ftplets never destroyed
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Jiří Kuhn jiri.k...@clapix.com wrote: destroy() method on ftplet container is never called. I gues that something like serverContext.getFtpletContainer().destroy(); should be placed somewhere inside DefaultFtpServer.stop() method. Probably right just before serverContext disposition to be, let's say, consistent with init() method. I really wonder that none has noticed it yet. Or am I missing something? I'm aware of this, but unsure how we best handle it. If the user has provided their own FtpletContainer (pretty unlikely but possible), I think the API client should destroy the container itself. However, in most cases, clients will simple add Ftplets to the server, in this case we should destroy on shutdown. So, should we keep track of the fact that we're using our default provided FtpletContainer and only destroy if that's true? /niklas
