Request: option to not unlink the socket on close about junixsocket

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Could you please try whether removing the following lines in 
AFUNIXServerSocket#close() would do what you want?

if (boundEndpoint != null) {
            NativeUnixSocket.unlink(boundEndpoint.getSocketFile());
}

Cheers,
Christian

Original comment by ckkohl79 on 5 Oct 2010 at 6:22

• Changed state: Started
• Added labels: Milestone-Release1.4, OpSys-All, Priority-Low, Type-Enhancement
• Removed labels: Priority-Medium, Type-Defect

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I'm sure this would work.  However, I realized I don't need it.  I can just 
always open the socket under a temporary name (whether there is already a 
running instance or not) and rename it.  junixsocket will try to delete the 
temporary name and fail.  So you can forget this weird request.

This approach also solves the other issue (6) I commented on.  When I want to 
gracefully shut down, I rename the socket to a new name, so it can no longer 
receive "real" connections.  (Or in the case of take-over, I link the socket to 
a new name, then rename a new socket over it.)  Then I connect to it (under the 
new name) and send a shutdown message in my application protocol.  Assuming the 
OS doesn't reorder connections, I can be sure that by the time I accepted this 
message, all real connections had already been accepted.

In other words, by using filesystem operations, I can achieve the "stop 
listening, but continue to accept backlogged connections" semantic I was 
looking for.  Cool.

Original comment by [email protected] on 6 Oct 2010 at 7:54

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Agreed to solve this outside of junixsocket.
Closing.

Original comment by ckkohl79 on 20 Feb 2013 at 12:01

• Changed state: WontFix