Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact commons-httpclient-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list commons-httpclient-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 41097 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2003 17:32:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tempus.leanlogistics.com) (206.150.184.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Feb 2003 17:32:24 -0000 Received: by tempus.leanlogistics.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 8 Feb 2003 12:32:50 -0500 Message-ID: <712C530350CFD31189E500600891BEC18C7992@tempus.leanlogistics.com> From: Nick Coleman To: "'commons-httpclient-dev@jakarta.apache.org'" Subject: RE: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 16904] - Input Stream closed, Output Stre am valid, no detection by socket Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 12:32:48 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01C2CF98.1922B9C0" X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N ------_=_NextPart_000_01C2CF98.1922B9C0 Content-Type: text/plain Thank you for the directions for how to submit this problem... Attached are the file I created. > Feedback to your patch: > It will buffer the whole response which is not good. Imagine a 1GB response. You would not want this to be buffered, would you. By using the Piped Streams I have limited the buffer size haven't I? >thread.interrupt() does not kill a thread. It only sets the interrupted flag. You are not checking for this flag. So the >interrupt call will stay unnoticed. You're right about this, but at some point the input stream will be closed and thread will exit. (It's definitely not the most elegant way... I'll try to work on a test case in the meantime. ------_=_NextPart_000_01C2CF98.1922B9C0--