Thread Behavior - Deadlock

["EXT-Raiteri, Ashley L" <as...@boeing.com>]

As  a newbie I am embarrassed to ask this question:
but, is everyone Certain that the current implementation with Thread Groups,
and using the Shutdown method will actually terminate an instantiated
WebServer object?
Our client instantiates a Webserver to process it's xmlrpc calls, and then
when the client is told to shutdown,
it calls the Shutdown method in WebServer.
But looking my debugger it doesn't look like the Thread created by the
Webserver ever terminates.
I have verified that the Webserver run methods does complete and exit, but
for some reason there seems to be something else waiting....
Ashley Raiteri




-----Original Message-----
From: John Wilson [mailto:tug@wilson.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 12:01 PM
To: rpc-dev@xml.apache.org
Cc: dlr@finemaltcoding.com
Subject: Re: XmlRpcServer found un-streamy



----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Rall" <dl...@finemaltcoding.com>
To: <rp...@xml.apache.org>; <da...@userland.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: XmlRpcServer found un-streamy


[snip]
> The XML-RPC spec apparently does not take HTTP/1.1 into consideration
> (I believe it came while HTTP/1.1 was still an emergent technology
> when the spec was published).
[snip]
> I think the spec needs adjustment for HTTP/1.1, so I'm CC'ing this
> mail to UserLand (as they appear to maintain the XML-RPC spec).  If no
> one has any issues with it, I will also be so bold as to create a
> branch in the CVS repository for adding HTTP/1.1 support to the client
> and server, banking on the eventuality of spec support.

Dan,

I think you may be new to XML-RPC. Please forgive me if you are not and you
already know this....


XML-RPC is a trademark of Dave Winer's Userland company. The spec is
copyrighted by Userland and is licensed under terms which allow people who
implement the spec to use the term XML-RPC and for people to change or
extend the spec in any way they like as long as they don't call it XML-RPC.
Dave is adamant that the spec is frozen. By frozen I understand that he
means that not a dot or comma of the spec can be changed and that
"clarifications" are not permitted. Dave has held this position for a very
long time against quite intense pressure (and I have done my share of
pressurising!). The spec has vagueness, ambiguity and contradicts the XML
spec in at least one place. However if we want to implement XML-RPC we have
to live with it. In practice there are common spec violations (allowing non
USASCII characters in strings so that Hannes can spell his name correctly,
for example). However there are certainly quite a few XML-RPC
implementations around which use HTTP 1.1 in the header but will not support
chunked transfers, just as there are XML-RPC servers who return a
Content-Length header to an HTTP 0.9 request.

Probably a better forum for us to discuss the
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xml-rpc/ mailing list. You will find many
instances of people arguing for extensions, changes and clarifications in
the archive ;)

John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk