Best way to halt Java process?
in [Java Help]
|
Prev: encrypted javamail MimeMultipart
Next: Urgent DIRECT CLIENT Openings: 1.Websphere Portal - Developer, 2.ITIM-TAM Analyst, 3. IT Project Coordinator / Project Analyst
From: Todd on 10 Jun 2010 10:52 Hello, I have a Java process that when it is improperly configured, it needs to halt (programmatically). My understanding was that System.exit(status) was the way to do this. There has been some grumbling that there may be another, better way to do this, but nobody has an specifics. References have been made to Eclipse and JBoss, but Google hasn't turned up any useful results. Anybody here know anything about this? I know it is a bit ambiguous, but I am searching the darkness with a penlight for answers to this. Thanks, Todd
From: Alessio Stalla on 10 Jun 2010 11:06 On Jun 10, 4:52 pm, Todd <todd.heident...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I have a Java process that when it is improperly configured, it needs > to halt (programmatically). My understanding was that > System.exit(status) was the way to do this. It still is. > There has been some > grumbling that there may be another, better way to do this, but nobody > has an specifics. References have been made to Eclipse and JBoss, but > Google hasn't turned up any useful results. Neither Eclipse nor JBoss are likely to have anything to do with exiting an application. Just keep in mind that System.exit kills the entire JVM, so if your "process" is a webapp in a servlet container, you'll kill all the other webapps and the container, too. Regards, Alessio
From: Todd on 10 Jun 2010 12:02 On Jun 10, 9:06 am, Alessio Stalla <alessiosta...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Just keep in mind that System.exit kills the entire JVM, so if your > "process" is a webapp in a servlet container, you'll kill all the > other webapps and the container, too. > That's what I understood, but thanks for the reminder. For the purposes of this process/application, failing to a safe-mode (in this case where no further processing is allowed) is best, so halting the JVM is reasonable. Todd
From: Todd on 10 Jun 2010 12:06 On Jun 10, 9:15 am, r...(a)zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote: > Todd <todd.heident...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >I have a Java process that when it is improperly configured, it needs > >to halt (programmatically). My understanding was that > >System.exit(status) was the way to do this. There has been some > >grumbling that there may be another, better way to do this, but nobody > >has an specifics. > > I prefer, in a console application, to return from »main«, > and in a Swing application, to dispose all Swing resources. This process is running in the background as a Windows service. In the most likely scenario, the interface will have not yet initialized. In the least likely scenario, there will be an interface running in a browser, attempting to connect with this server process. The server process failing to a safe state (not accepting further input, halting processing - in this case) is expected. With that in mind, since the use case presents abnormal situations, what is your preferred exit strategy?
From: Eric Sosman on 10 Jun 2010 14:07
On 6/10/2010 12:02 PM, Todd wrote: > On Jun 10, 9:06 am, Alessio Stalla<alessiosta...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Just keep in mind that System.exit kills the entire JVM, so if your >> "process" is a webapp in a servlet container, you'll kill all the >> other webapps and the container, too. >> > > That's what I understood, but thanks for the reminder. For the > purposes of this process/application, failing to a safe-mode (in this > case where no further processing is allowed) is best, so halting the > JVM is reasonable. Keep in mind that things like application servers and browsers will not allow applets/servlets/whatnot to stop the JVM: They'll install security managers, and System.exit() will wind up throwing SecurityException. Assuming you don't catch it, this will cause the thread that called System.exit() to terminate. But if you've launched additional threads, they won't be affected by the intercepted attempt to exit. Not necessarily a problem (especially in your case, where I gather the problem is detected early and you might not have launched a lot of threads yet), but something to be aware of. -- Eric Sosman esosman(a)ieee-dot-org.invalid |