If your need daemon threads to perform some type of cleanup. You'll need to
- Create a non-deamon thread for the sole purpose of ensuring the JVM stays up
- Create a LifeCycleListener (or other appropriate listener) to listen for
tomcat startup and shutdown events
- On shutdown, you'll need a synching method to kill the non-daemon thread
once it knows all the daemon threads are done doing their thing

-Tim

Frank.Strecker@(protected):
> Okay, I see that point. Since the worker threads who perform the very work to
> respond a request are deamons, there seems to be a hard and unconfigured timeout
> effective in TC406.
>
> TC403 and TC406 show different behaviors when stopping. Both would require
> certain application coding, but which one is the correct behavior, that
> application programmers should rely on?
>
>
>
>
>
> Tim Funk <funkman@(protected)>
> 04.06.2003 12:03
>
> Bitte antworten an "Tomcat Users List" <tomcat-user@(protected)>
> An:   Tomcat Users List <tomcat-user@(protected)>
> Kopie:
> Thema: Re: Different shutdown behavior of httpConnector in TC403 (graceful)
>      and TC406 (reckless)
>
>
> There isn't any code (that I know of) in 4.0.6 that performs the kill.
>
> The JVM will terminate if "only daemon threads are running". If the daemon
> threads need to perform more work during a shutdown, you need to make sure
> one of them is non-daemon.
>
> -Tim
>
> Frank.Strecker@(protected):
>
>>When shutdown.sh is launched, TC performs a stop on all HttpConnectors, which
>>themselves will stop their HttpProcessors.
>>
>>It seems to that - while TC 403 waits "gracefully" for the work on a request
>
> to
>
>>be finished (even forever) - TC 406 will wait 5 secs only and then shutdown
>>without
>>any respect to the work done in the processors background threads.
>>
>>I am afraid both ways can have undesired consequences. TC 403 will sometimes
>>simply resist to shut down, while in a TC406 shutdown the work done in daemon
>>threads will be interrupted without regards to the current states of the
>>threads.
>>
>>The behavior of TC 406 is fine when there are only requests that can be
>
> handled
>
>>fast. On the other hand, with large transactions I would prefer the behavior
>
> of
>
>>TC 403 and pervent the requests from lasting too long by implementing
>>configurable timeouts myself in the application code. Otherwise - or as it
>
> seems
>
>>to be implemented in TC406 - we would risk to interrupt vulnerable operations,
>>aren't we?
>>
>>So, my primary question is this one: Did I overlook a point, in particular: Is
>>there a way to configure the shutdown behavior in TC 406 top wait for the
>>background threads to finish?
>>
>>There was discussion on that topic last year (
>>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=104454190600001&r=1&w=2),
>>but I do not see where it had practical consequences in the code.
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>Frank
>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-user-unsubscribe@(protected)
>>For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-user-help@(protected)
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-user-unsubscribe@(protected)
> For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-user-help@(protected)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-user-unsubscribe@(protected)
> For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-user-help@(protected)
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-user-unsubscribe@(protected)
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-user-help@(protected)