On 11/25/06, peter royal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 23, 2006, at 10:07 PM, Trustin Lee wrote: > My question here is, does it really need to be configurable? > Because we are > having the same issue with SocketIoProcessor, we will also have to > add the > property to SocketAcceptor if it should be configurable. We can > simply add > it, but I want to know if it is really need to be configurable. > Say we just > hard-coded the workerTimeout to 5 seconds. The worst case is that > connection attempts take place every 5 seconds, but it's *big* 5 > seconds > which make the instantiation overhead (for Selector and Thread) > negligible. > > Any feedbacks are welcome, and I will get rid of workerTimeout > property if > there's no objection within 3 days. As long as there is a timeout it needs to be configurable (so it can be set to a large enough value as to not time out at all). The only removal I support is not having the worker threads time-out at all. Rather, doing a graceful shutdown when their owning component tells them to shut down.
That makes sense. Then let me provide an explicit shutdown method rather than providing timeouts. Trustin -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP key fingerprints: * E167 E6AF E73A CBCE EE41 4A29 544D DE48 FE95 4E7E * B693 628E 6047 4F8F CFA4 455E 1C62 A7DC 0255 ECA6
