Thanks. When do you think you'll cut a new 1.8.18-? into Maven. It's not
that I can't build from trunk but this is production critical and I just
don't want, or really need to for that matter, get into pushing any library
trunk code into production for anything short of an emergency fix. There
is _no_ rush here. If you were already planning on cutting something in the
next 2-3 weeks that is fine with me.
Thanks,
Ray
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Oleksiy Stashok <Oleksiy.Stashok_at_sun.com>wrote:
> Well,
>
> as I mentioned, I've added it the same way we support socket linger,
> soTimeout options.
> So it's just additional field in TCPNIOTransport.
>
> WBR,
> Alexey.
>
> On Apr 1, 2010, at 17:28 , Ming Qin wrote:
>
> Oleksiy Stashok:
>
> BTW, I've added keepAlive support to 2.0 branch
>
> Can you elaborate with implementation of keepAlive in 2.0 branch ?
>
>
> Ming Qin
> Cell Phone 858-353-2839
>
> --- On *Wed, 3/31/10, Oleksiy Stashok <Oleksiy.Stashok_at_Sun.COM>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Oleksiy Stashok <Oleksiy.Stashok_at_Sun.COM>
> Subject: Re: Socket TCP/IP KeepAlive
> To: users_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
> Date: Wednesday, March 31, 2010, 8:51 AM
>
> Hi,
>
> correct.
> We'd need to add it the same way we have linger, soTimeout and other socket
> config values.
> BTW, I've added keepAlive support to 2.0 branch.
>
> WBR,
> Alexey.
>
> On Mar 31, 2010, at 17:42 , Ming Qin wrote:
>
> Hi :
>
> Just like to validate my thoughts on implementing Socket TCP/IP KeepAlive
> for Grizzly.
>
> Since Java.net.SocketOptions.SO_KEEPALIVE can let TCP automatically sends
> a keepalive probe to the peer. The probe is a TCP segment to which peer must
> respond.
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape
finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius