Return-Path: 
 <derby-dev-return-93082-apmail-db-derby-dev-archive=db.apache.org@db.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 372199FCC
	for <apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@www.apache.org>;
 Wed,  8 Feb 2012 21:21:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 66040 invoked by uid 500); 8 Feb 2012 21:21:25 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@db.apache.org
Received: (qmail 65961 invoked by uid 500); 8 Feb 2012 21:21:25 -0000
Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:derby-dev-help@db.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:derby-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:derby-dev@db.apache.org>
List-Id: <derby-dev.db.apache.org>
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list derby-dev@db.apache.org
Received: (qmail 65950 invoked by uid 99); 8 Feb 2012 21:21:24 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:21:24 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2000.0 required=5.0
	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received: from [140.211.11.116] (HELO hel.zones.apache.org) (140.211.11.116)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:21:22 +0000
Received: from hel.zones.apache.org (hel.zones.apache.org [140.211.11.116])
	by hel.zones.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2AE31ABF83
	for <derby-dev@db.apache.org>; Wed,  8 Feb 2012 21:21:01 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 21:21:01 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Kristian Waagan (Commented) (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Message-ID: 
 <1857935195.16670.1328736061864.JavaMail.tomcat@hel.zones.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <1813363086.16163.1328731019564.JavaMail.tomcat@hel.zones.apache.org>
Subject: [jira] [Commented] (DERBY-5608) BaseTestCase.readProcessOutput
 should read getInputStream()  and getErrorStream() in separate threads
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-5608?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13204004#comment-13204004 ] 

Kristian Waagan commented on DERBY-5608:
----------------------------------------

Don't know if it is an option, but could readProcessOutput be discarded ([1]) and SpawnedProcess be extended to deal with this?
SpawnedProcess already does what readProcessOutput does (or should have done), except for constructing a string from the raw output data. After having read a bit about best practices for java.lang.Process, there seems to be several common pitfalls associated with its use. It would be good to deal with them in one place.
SpawnedProcess also has some issues that needs to be fixed. I was planning to deal with that under DERBY-5601, but maybe this issue is a better fit?


[1] Or keep the method and just use SpawnedProcess in the method implementation.
                
> BaseTestCase.readProcessOutput should read getInputStream()  and getErrorStream() in separate threads
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DERBY-5608
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-5608
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Test
>    Affects Versions: 10.9.0.0
>            Reporter: Kathey Marsden
>            Priority: Minor
>
> BaseTestCase.readProcessOutput() reads the streams from Process.getInputStream() and Process.getErrorStream() sequentially 
> InputStream is = pr.getInputStream();
> InputStream es = pr.getErrorStream();
> ...
>  output += "<STDOUT> " + inputStreamToString(is) + "<END STDOUT>\n";
>  output += "<STDERR>" + inputStreamToString(es) + "<END STDERR>\n";
> I think that to be really correct the  two streams need to be read in separate threads because if the error output  is  large it could block and cause a hang  if they are read sequentially like this.
> I noticed during the DERBY-5601 discussion as Myrna referenced in that  the addition of draining the error stream caused a different problem (an InterruptException). I don't understand how it could cause that problem but do think a hang blocking on  reading the input would be possible if the error output was large enough both  before and after the change to add the reading of the error stream sequentially.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira