That should would work too :)

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Jason Eacott <[email protected]> wrote:
> why not just mark the thread as daemon and fix it that way?
>
> Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>
>> Hi Phillipe,
>>
>> Ideally this should shut down without any problems.  When Shiro
>> discovers that you need Sessions, it automatically kicks off a thread
>> to perform session validation at a regular interval to prevent
>> orphaned sessions from eating up memory.
>>
>> So yes, the LifecycleUtils.destroy method will definitely work and is
>> a good solution, but I think a more elegant solution might be to apply
>> a Runtime hook to shut down the thread automatically.  Could you
>> please open a Jira issue for this?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Les
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Philippe Laflamme <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all, I'm using Shiro for a command line application. I'm instantiating
>>> the SecurityManager exactly how it is specified on the wiki:
>>>
>>> Factory factory = new IniSecurityManagerFactory("classpath:shiro.ini");
>>> SecurityManager securityManager = factory.getInstance();
>>> SecurityUtils.setSecurityManager(securityManager);
>>>
>>> After authenticating a user, a new thread is spawned. Seems to be related
>>> to
>>> the default session management code. The problem I have is that this
>>> thread
>>> is never stopped, and so my command line never exists. I've found that
>>> the
>>> solution is to invoke destroy on the SecurityManager instance. Since the
>>> method isn't part of the SecurityManager hierarchy, I've delegated the
>>> call
>>> to the LifecycleUtils class:
>>>
>>>  LifecycleUtils.destroy(SecurityUtils.getSecurityManager());
>>>
>>> This works fine, but I'm wondering if this is the suggested/correct
>>> pattern.
>>> It wasn't obvious, I had to inspect Shiro code. What's the recommended
>>> approach? Thanks, Philippe
>>> ________________________________
>>> View this message in context: Shutting down Shiro
>>> Sent from the Shiro User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to