Like Rickard, we also have started to call release() in a finally block for client and clientresource code, since it seemed, according to previous posts, that that was a necessary best practice, especially when using the Httpclient4 extension, where we'd seen situations where threads weren't getting released properly. So, it'd be great to see an official client-code best practice example that includes calls to exhaust() and release().
-Dave On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Rickard Öberg <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2010-12-30 07.34, Jerome Louvel wrote: >> Hi Marc, >> >> I don't know if you still experiment issues with this, but here are a couple >> of clarifications: >> >> 1) release() has the effect of closing the underlying TCP socket, preventing >> persistent connection reuse. So it can't be recommended to systematically >> call it. >> >> 2) exhaust() does ensure a proper consumption of the entity and enable reuse >> of the connection. If you don't systematically consume the entity via other >> means (actually reading it), then calling exhaust() is the way to go. > > Is there any difference between best practices of how a client vs a > server should handle this? Right now we have our clients do > response.release() in a finally block. Does your response imply that > this messes up persistent connections from the clients point of view? > > /Rickard > > ------------------------------------------------------ > http://restlet.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4447&dsMessageId=2694744 > ------------------------------------------------------ http://restlet.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4447&dsMessageId=2695029
