https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56684
--- Comment #7 from Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> --- (In reply to Konstantin Kolinko from comment #6) > BTW, > Javadoc for ServerSocket.setSoTimeout() says that to set an infinite timeout > one uses the value of "0". Is somebody confusing '0' and '-1'? Not that I can see having looked at the JRE code. > I think the javadoc for ServerSocket.accept() implies that the default > timeout is infinite. So I think it is a JRE bug. That is a possibility, but having looked at the JRE code, I don't see where the problem is. > In general it makes some sense to protect against this. A timeout is not a > "receiving a valid shutdown command" event, and encountering a timeout does > not make the server socket an invalid one, so we should be able to continue. Agreed. There is no reason I can think of that accept should time out so we can certiainly add some protection against this issue here. We can probably add some useful debug info as well. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
