On 02/04/2008, Sahoo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Stuart McCulloch wrote: > > On 02/04/2008, Felix Meschberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Hi Sahoo, > >> > >> Am Mittwoch, den 02.04.2008, 10:40 +0530 schrieb Sahoo: > >> > >> > >>> My observation is that the EventDispatcher thread is the only thread > >>> that can be configured (well almost configured) as daemon or > non-daemon. > >>> All other threads spawned by Felix are daemon threads. The reason I > say > >>> the event dispatcher thread can be configured is because it inherits > the > >>> daemon status of the parent thread, i.e., the thread that starts > Felix. > >>> So, if I start Felix on a daemon thread then that becomes a daemon > >>> thread. I don't think this is documented any where, is this? Can I > rely > >>> on this behavior? If not, can we add a configuration option for this? > >>> > >> Just a quick question for validation: Why do you care ? > >> > > > > > > FYI, one reason to care is that the JVM will exit if only daemon threads > > remain - so it's important for people to know that when you create a new > > thread it inherits the daemon status of the thread creating it. > > > > I don't believe it is spec'd what sort of threads OSGi frameworks should > > use, so OSGi users should be careful when creating new threads inside > > their bundle activators. > > > > the safest approach is to always set the daemon status of a new thread, > > that way you know whether it's a daemon or not regardless of what sort > > of threads a framework uses... > > > > I am not starting any thread inside my bundle. The thread in question is > an Felix specific thread. It right now inherits the status of the thread > that starts Felix. There are three options: > 1) We document this behavior so that people can rely on it. > 2) Always set daemon status = true > 3) Use a property to configure the status. > #3 is the best alternative IMO and it's pretty easy to implement.
yes - I know you were talking about Felix's own threads :) but this was a good time to point out that users should be aware their threads will inherit the daemon status from the framework thread, and for most OSGi frameworks this is set to true there has already been one Equinox user that was caught out by this, and I think it's important to stress this fact here as well (I'm also adding it to the FAQ) Now coming to the point of why users care, as Stuart rightly pointed > out, users who embed Felix in their application don't want the > application to hang around even after all the application threads are > gone. Today to ensure that, they have to rely on an undocumented feature > (i.e. option #1). > > Thanks, > > Sahoo > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Cheers, Stuart
