Bug #7063249
Alan Bateman
Alan.Bateman at oracle.com
Wed Sep 18 09:05:38 UTC 2013
On 18/09/2013 05:36, cowwoc wrote:
> Hi Alan,
>
> Just reminding you that we originally agreed to try to get this
> into JDK7, and having failed that, into JDK8. I see that
> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7063249 is still
> marked as unresolved and that we have under a month to get it into
> JDK8. Can you please let me know what needs to be done to get this
> into JDK8?
To my knowledge, there hasn't been any further discussion on this since
it was discussed here (in July 2011, just after JDK 7 was released).
As it currently stands then if there isn't a timeout then an
asynchronous I/O operation completes when the I/O operation completes
(or the channel is closed). When there is a timeout specified then the
I/O operation may fail early with InterruptedByTimeoutException.
So this was a discussion about translating familiar usages of timeout
(on synchronous methods) to how those timeouts should work with
asynchronous operations. You brought up that a timeout <= 0 should mean
the I/O operation completes immediately and I don't think we fully
established whether this was the right thing to do, at least for the
case where the I/O operation cannot complete immediately. So I believe
I suggested this topic needed further consideration and 7063249 was the
reminder to re-examine the topic. Unfortunately I have not had cycles
myself to explore this further since then (sorry about, just way too
many other things going on).
-Alan.
More information about the nio-dev
mailing list