Bug #7063249

[Alan Bateman]

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.