OK with me. Just make sure that setExecutor(ExecutorService executorService) 
works correctly. But, I’m concerned there’s a bug in CloseableExecutorService. 
I’d like to see it fixed if there is one.

-Jordan

> On Jul 21, 2016, at 4:38 PM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> In that case, I have no idea why TreeCache would use CloseableExecutorService 
> at all, it's a pointless (and in fact, destructive) wrapper at this point.  
> How about I just eliminate it?
> 
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> I forget now who wrote CloseableExecutorService. As I recall, the desire was 
> to be able to have an object that looks like an ExecutorService but could 
> handle an externally managed ExecutorService or an internally managed one. 
> This way, the code could always treat it as internally managed - being able 
> to call shutdownNow, etc. - but if it was provided by a client it would only 
> close threads actually used by the instnace.
> 
> -Jordan
> 
> 
>> On Jul 21, 2016, at 4:28 PM, Scott Blum <[email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> 
>> Looks like a real bug... for some reason, the single-arg constructor for 
>> CloseableExecutorService defaults to NOT actually shutting down the 
>> underlying executor.  This makes absolutely no sense to me, but it's the 
>> source of the bug... most of the code paths to construct a TreeCache use the 
>> 1-arg constructor.  Only one of them uses the 2-arg constructor with the 
>> right setting.
>> 
>> I have to admit, the design of CloseableExecutorService is kind of 
>> WTF-inducing for me...
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Jordan Zimmerman 
>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> Please open an issue in Jira if this is a real bug.
>> 
>> > On Jul 21, 2016, at 4:16 PM, Scott Blum <[email protected] 
>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Okay, now I can repro it; the difference was you adding the loop to wait 
>> > for the thread to start up.
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

Reply via email to