Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact rpc-user-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list rpc-user@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 62776 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2002 17:41:22 -0000 Received: from slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com (12.13.237.21) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 24 Jun 2002 17:41:22 -0000 Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com ([129.172.13.4]) by slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com (8.9.2/8.8.5-M2) with ESMTP id KAA15869 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 10:41:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blv-hub-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/MBS-AV-01) with ESMTP id KAA29778 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 10:41:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xch-nwbh-02.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwbh-02.nw.nos.boeing.com [192.54.12.28]) by blv-hub-01.boeing.com (8.11.3/8.11.3/MBS-LDAP-01) with ESMTP id g5OHfO825485 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 10:41:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by xch-nwbh-02.nw.nos.boeing.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 10:41:24 -0700 Message-ID: From: "EXT-Raiteri, Ashley L" To: "'rpc-user@xml.apache.org'" Subject: RE: NullPointerException on server close Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 10:41:14 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N BINGO, there are SEPERATE THREADS, and the each one has to shutdown and close it socket, in no particular order, meanwhile the keepalive logic is still active while you are shuttdown and your code could even be trying to maintain the state of the socket after you have issued the shutdown :) -----Original Message----- From: Brian Dobby [mailto:bdobby@nobilis.com] Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 7:17 AM To: rpc-user@xml.apache.org Subject: RE: NullPointerException on server close Hi. > Try just doing the myserver.shutdown() and don't remove the handlers. I tried that, but had the same problem. It's odd that the message "Closing XML-RPC server socket" occurs twice; there is only one instance of it in the source, and that's in the 'finally' clause. I suppose the messages could be from separate threads. Regards Brian