Re: [certi-dev] RTIA shutdown

[Michael Raab]

Can you tell me where in RTIA this close_connection
message is handled? I cannot find anything...

Michael

Dipl.-Inf. Michael Raab

Fraunhofer-Institut für Fabrikbetrieb und -automatisierung IFF
Virtuell Interaktives Training
Sandtorstr. 22, 39106 Magdeburg, Germany          
      
Telefon +49 (0) 391/ 40 90 122
Telefax +49 (0) 391/ 40 90 115
address@hidden
http://www.iff.fraunhofer.de
oder http://www.vdtc.de



Von:      
 Eric Noulard <address@hidden>
An:      
 CERTI development discussions
<address@hidden>
Datum:      
 12/03/2010 10:56 AM
Betreff:    
   Re: [certi-dev]
RTIA shutdown
Gesendet von:    
   address@hidden

---

2010/12/3 Michael Raab <address@hidden>:
> Hi Eric,
>
> as a patch for that I would propose to extend both RTIAmbassador and
> RTI1516Ambassador destructor as follows:
>
> {
> certi::M_Close_Connexion req, rep ;
>
> G.Out(pdGendoc,"        ====>executeService
CLOSE_CONNEXION");
> privateRefs->executeService(&req, &rep);
> // after the response is received, the privateRefs->socketUn must
not be
> used
>
> // Terminate RTIA, if not already
> TerminateProcess(privateRefs->handle_RTIA, 0);
>
> delete privateRefs;
> }
>
> This works like a charm on windows. What do you think?

I think it shouldn't be necessary... so I'd like to know why it's not
terminating properly.
Before the CLOSE_CONNEXION message existed we had:

#ifdef _WIN32
                
TerminateProcess(privateRefs->handle_RTIA, 1);
#else
                
kill(privateRefs->pid_RTIA, SIGINT);
#endif
delete privateRefs ;

which pretty much what you proposed :-]
The fact was we had spurious termination trouble:
https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?22491

I think that not too far after that Petr did introduce the
CLOSE_CONNEXION thing.
Then I merged a patch from Mathias which addressed the same kind of
termination issue:
https://savannah.nongnu.org/patch/index.php?6923

But now I'm not sure all this did fix the problem for good...

and we still have an open **may not be unrelated**  bug:
https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/index.php?26748

So before killing "apparently immortal" process I'd really like
to know
why they insist on not dieing properly when asked :-]

If we forcibly kill, I'm afraid we may hide the real issue.

-- 
Erk
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org

-- 
CERTI-Devel mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/certi-devel