[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IO-259?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12983806#action_12983806
]
Dan Checkoway commented on IO-259:
----------------------------------
Another variation would be to have FileAlterationMonitor.stop(long millis), and
millis would be passed to thread.join(). That way the caller could specify the
max allowable wait time for the join. NOTE that 0 means wait forever according
to the JDK, so you'd have to pass 1 (or would -1 work?) if you wanted it to
wait as little time as possible.
> FileAlterationMonitor.stop(boolean allowIntervalToFinish)
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: IO-259
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IO-259
> Project: Commons IO
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Dan Checkoway
> Attachments: IO-259.patch
>
>
> I'm a long-time user of commons-io, but I just started using
> FileAlterationMonitor the other day. I have a bean in a Spring application
> context that constructs a FileAlterationMonitor, and it sets the
> ThreadFactory to an instance that creates daemon threads. At context
> shutdown, my bean calls .stop() on the monitor.
> The problem is that .stop() currently honors the Thread.sleep(interval), in
> that it does a nice friendly thread.join(). If you set your interval high
> enough, your "graceful app shutdown" is going to sit there waiting a while.
> Compounding things is that I have *seven* FileAlterationMonitors in my app,
> all of which run with a 10-second sleep time. So at graceful shutdown time,
> I'm facing a delay of up to 70 seconds...lame!
> So I stopped calling .stop() and since the ThreadFactory created daemon
> threads, shutdown is quick. But...
> I'm running inside tomcat, and when it shuts down it looks for leaks. And of
> course it finds a handful of my threads and complains, such as:
> SEVERE: The web application [/my-webapp] appears to have started a thread
> named [FileUpdateMonitor-/path/to/my/file.ext] but has failed to stop it.
> This is very likely to create a memory leak.
> So what I'm suggesting is an alternate version of
> FileAlterationMonitor.stop() that takes "boolean allowIntervalToFinish". The
> default behavior won't change (for backward compatibility). But if you
> explicitly call .stop(false), then it will interrupt the sleeping thread
> immediately. That thread wakes up, sees that running=false, and finishes up
> immediately.
> Patch will be attached in a sec...
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
