tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <>
Subject Re: Comet, next steps
Date Fri, 16 Jun 2006 23:34:30 GMT
Remy Maucherat wrote:
> Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
>>> Actually, I think the server should be the one closing the 
>>> connection. In other cases, since it's a long running request, 
>>> discarding the connection is easier. In HTTP land, the server is 
>>> always the one in control of keepalive.
>> That's correct, however, the current implementation closes the 
>> connection after read returns false, so there is no keepalive 
>> implemented.
> Yes, this case is the client signaling the end of the connection. In 
> some other cases, the server can end the connection gracefully, 
> although with these sort of long running connections, this is almost 
> never going to happen.
>>>> 4. The ability to close the channel from the server async (medium) 
>>>> -    two ways - a) timeout               b) call back from a 
>>>> separate thread
>>> This is too complex/risky: you don't know if the socket is still in 
>>> the poller, and destroying it twice or putting back / writing to a 
>>> destroyed socket is fatal.
>> not doing it, means you are setting yourself up for a DOS attack, 
>> since you can run out of connections, all of them being in polling 
>> state.
>> if the socket is in the poller, shouldn't Socket.destroy get it out 
>> of there.
> There is still a timeout. I don't see how the DoS risk is any 
> different from the regular scenario. Maybe it's smaller.
> No, sockets in a poller must not be destroyed.
>>>> And then the following steps
>>>> 1. Create a user guide for the CometServlet usage
>>>> 2. Create an example in servlet-examples
>>> There is one already ("chat"); it's a bad, but it works more or 
>>> less, and I used it for testing a bit. I also tested input using a 
>>> similar servlet and telnet, and no problem there.
>>>> Let me know your thoughts, 
>>> IMO, jumping on something like this is not the way to go.
>>> I thought about it a little bit more, and I have to veto your 
>>> commit: read will not return 0 (it's the same as it was before: a 
>>> blocking read, so it cannot return 0). I don't understand what your 
>>> intent is with resetting the remaining bytes numbers, etc. Also, 
>>> trying to take care of programming errors in the servlet is 
>>> pointless: similar errors could be made just as well with the 
>>> regular model, entering infinite loops in a similar way.
>> think you need to check the code once more, read is not forever 
>> blocking,>request.getInputStream().read(buf) 
>> doesn't read the socket inputstream, it reads the inputBuffer, and 
>> since the bug in the code never filled the buffer, so yes, the bug is 
>> fairly obvious. 
> Ok, so the bug is fairly obvious, but I do not see it :) I will review 
> your code, but can you revert your commit in the meantime ?
>> even worse, if you override the method, cause you 
>> want the dialog to continue even though you didn't receive a packet, 
>> then this is what happens
>> 1. The poller knows there is data to be read from the IO socket
>> 2. It wakes up, gets a worker thread, thread invokes the CometServlet,
>> 3. returns true
>> 4. the worker thread adds the socket back to the poller
>> 5. the poller will immediately wake up, as it has data, the same data 
>> in the buffer from before
> If the servlet is not reading data in read, there's going to be a 
> problem anyway. If you
>> the bug is that Socket.recbb never gets called when its a Comet event.
> Well, it's possible, who knows. However, this is a regular read, which 
> will trickle down to the socket, and cause the usual recvbb call. If 
> you are right, then there's indeed something obviously something I am 
> missing.
> The input should be exactly the same as before, except in between 
> reading on the socket, the socket goes in a poller.
>> I've spent a good two days getting myself familiar with the code, so 
>> this isn't a quick fix of any sort, and what I did, actually made the 
>> code work, and added in a fully functional client and server push 
>> model. You've done a great initial job, and I would ask you to 
>> reconsider your veto given the fact that I didn't just pull the fix 
>> out of my pants, I worked on it in a very detail oriented manner.
> Unfortunately, it looks like it:
> +                for (int i=0; i<inputBuffer.activeFilters.length; i++) {
> +                    //this resets the remaining flag and the content 
> length on the filter
> +                    //if we don't do this, then 
> will return 0
> +                    if (inputBuffer.activeFilters[i]!=null) 
> inputBuffer.activeFilters[i].setRequest(request);
> +                }
> This is a big hack to avoid content delimitation.
I see (and saw before) a simple solution to this
1. add to interface InputFilter.append(byte[]|ByteBuffer|ByteChunk)
but I know you would have a field day if I changed an interface, as the 
checkin would be much larger and I would for sure get a -1,
at least with this one I had hoped you took a little consideration 
befored vetoed.

In terms of reverting my checkin, can we sit on it over the weekend, 
since the current code enabled my async client currently, and the old 
code is broken.
We're not in a hurry with the Comet stuff are we.

With the proposed feature set, Tomcat would excel beyond the existing 
async implementations in like Jetty or Weblogic, yet it would support 
the same as they have today.
So we got a late start, that doesn't mean we can't jump ahead of them, 
right ;)


Filip Hanik

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message