Reputation: 6715
I'm trying to do something potentially stupid, but I reckon it's a good idea, so bear with me. I tried to implement it, but I hit an awkward issue with sockets closing between threads - so I want some fresh eyes on the case.
I want to write an object from a Client
to a Server
via sockets. There may be more than one Client
communicating with the Server
concurrently.
The object, a Message
, is handled by the Server
through its handling mechanisms. It is proposed that instead of the Server
's main thread looking out for new incoming connections, a Listener
thread is set up. Once it spots an incoming connection, it alerts the Server
, storing the socket in a queue without receiving the data, so it can go back to listening quickly.
In its own time, the Server
picks up the waiting socket, spawns a new thread, reads the Message
, and closes the socket.
Here's my first thoughts on how this should be implemented. There is a fundamental flaw in it which I will explain below.
Ignore the use of public fields - I'm just trying to make the code short for you guys
public class Server {
public boolean messageWaiting = false;
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Server().run();
}
public void run() {
Listener l = new Listener();
l.listen(this);
try {
while (true) {
System.out.println("I'm happily doing my business!");
Thread.sleep(1000);
if (messageWaiting) {
acceptMessages(l);
}
}
} catch (InterruptedException die) {}
}
private void acceptMessages(Listener l) {
while (!l.waiting.isEmpty()) {
try (
Socket client = l.waiting.poll();
ObjectInputStream ois = new ObjectInputStream(client.getInputStream())
) {
// Handle messages in new threads! (or a thread pool)
new Thread() {
public void run() {
try {
System.out.println(ois.readObject());
} catch (Exception ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
}.start();
} catch (Exception ex) {
// Oh no! The socket has already been closed!
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
public class Listener {
public ConcurrentLinkedQueue<Socket> waiting = new ConcurrentLinkedQueue<>();
public void listen(final Server callback) {
new Thread() {
public void run() {
try (ServerSocket rxSock = new ServerSocket(7500)) {
while (!isInterrupted()) {
try (Socket client = rxSock.accept()) {
// Once a new socket arrives, add it to the waiting queue
waiting.add(client);
// Alert the server
callback.messageWaiting = true;
} catch (IOException ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
} catch (IOException ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
}.start();
}
}
public class Client {
public static void main(String[] args) {
try (
Socket txSock = new Socket(InetAddress.getLoopbackAddress(), 7500);
ObjectOutputStream oos = new ObjectOutputStream(txSock.getOutputStream())
) {
oos.writeObject("This is a Message, trust me.");
} catch (IOException ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
This:
I'm happily doing my business!
I'm happily doing my business!
java.net.SocketException: Socket is closed
at java.net.Socket.getInputStream(Unknown Source)
at Server.acceptMessages(Server.java:30)
at Server.run(Server.java:20)
at Server.main(Server.java:9)
This is because the Java 7 try blocks I'm using close the sockets once they're finished. So why don't I do this manually? Try yourself - you end up with a warning saying you're only ever going to call close() on a null object!
So, how do I avoid the whole issue of my incoming socket being closed before the Server
thread picks up on it? Or is this a bad idea anyway and I should do something else?
Upvotes: 2
Views: 1655
Reputation: 86754
Your statement in Listener
try (Socket client = rxSock.accept()) { ...
Is a try-with-resources for the client socket. As soon as you add it to the queue and exit the try block, the socket gets auto-closed.
Upvotes: 1