Oleg, I agree that operation level timeouts are useful.
That stops my application from being stuck, unlike the blocking IO model. But the low level socket is still stuck for a while, and there is no way to clean it up. Also what if you are streaming different sizes of data over, over network with different speeds, to different clients? You cannot have a single operation timeout that fits all. Also, if a TCP session is dropped or terminated without RST or FIN packets, the operating system it left to eventually time out the session, which is a much longer timeout than desired. Thanks, Rishi. From: Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> To: HttpClient User Discussion <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 at 9:55 am Subject: Re: HttpAsyncClient - Socket Write Timeout. On Tue, 2012-06-12 at 12:04 -0400, [email protected] wrote: > Hi, > > I know java only provides soTimeout which is a read time out. > Is there any existing implementation of soWriteTimout using the AsyncClient? > any reference in this direction would be gr8. > If not, is it anywhere in the road map of the AsyncCleint? > > Thanks, > > Rishi. > > Rishi Socket timeout used by HttpAsyncClient and HttpCore NIO is effectively the maximum period of I/O inactivity for the given session. It applied both to read and write operations. Personally I have never encountered a convincing case for write timeouts. What situation could it be useful in? Oleg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
