[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HTTPCORE-200?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12731450#action_12731450
]
Oleg Kalnichevski commented on HTTPCORE-200:
--------------------------------------------
@Odi
Thread#isInterrupted() is less of a problem compared to Thread#currentThread(),
which as far as I understand can behave differently depending on the execution
environment. Low level components simply ought not meddle with threads. Calling
Thread.currentThread().isInterrputed() from a low level component of a
_generic_ library seems semantically wrong to me.
@Eugene
HttpClient aborts requests by shutting down the underlying socket, which
basically ensures the execution flow gets interrupted by an IOException no
matter what.
There are several possible extension points one could use to introduce such a
check, both AbstractSessionInputBuffer and SocketInputStream being reasonable
candidates. I still contend, though, Thread.currentThread() checks do not
really belong to the stock version of HttpCore
Oleg
> ContentLengthInputStream.close() is not interruptible and may take an
> arbitrarily long time to complete
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HTTPCORE-200
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HTTPCORE-200
> Project: HttpComponents HttpCore
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: HttpCore
> Affects Versions: 4.0
> Reporter: Eugene Kirpichov
>
> The method ContentLengthInputStream.close() reads the entity content to end.
> It does so in a non-interruptible fashion, and thus, if the entity content is
> too long (or even infinite), the method may take too much time or not
> terminate at all.
> I have actually observed this behavior: my program does a time-limited web
> crawl and, after the time limit is exceeded, interrupts the crawler thread
> and expects it to finish soon. The thread didn't finish in several minutes
> after the interrupt, because it was stuck in consumeContent() for some very
> large entity.
> Actually, execution time of this method for an entity of size N is limited by
> soTimeout * N / ContentLengthInputStream.BUFFER_SIZE for the worst case where
> each call to read() in the close() method almost causes a socket timeout.
> This upper limit is definitely too large, especially for a method that is
> supposed to release resources.
> It would of course be best if interrupting the thread just caused an
> IOException in the underlying SocketInputStream.read(), but I know that this
> functionality is not implemented in the JVM (and probably not going to be),
> so we need a workaround.
> I suggest that ContentLengthInputStream.close() (or someone down its call
> stack) check for Thread.currentThread.isInterrputed() between reads from the
> socket and throw an InterruptedIOException if it returns true. Probably, this
> might be done in AbstractSessionInputBuffer.fillBuffer().
> If done so, execution time of this method will be limited by 2*soTimeout,
> which is already acceptable and at least predictable.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@hc.apache.org
