We Keep Coding

How to stop server in Client Server multithreading

I am implementing a multi-threaded client-server application in java. I want to implement JDBC in this program and I want my server to retrieve data from the database whenever it is started. I will store that data in my collection instances, perform manipulations on data and when server completes execution, I need to store the data back to the database. The problem is that the server is in an infinite loop waiting for clients and I am not able to figure out how to make the server stop.
This is my server program:
import java.io.*;
import java.text.*;
import java.util.*;
import java.net.*;
public class Server
{
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException
{
// server is listening on port 5056
ServerSocket ss = new ServerSocket(5056);
// running infinite loop for getting
// client request
while (true)
{
Socket s = null;
try {
// socket object to receive incoming client requests
s = ss.accept();
System.out.println("A new client is connected : " + s);
// obtaining input and out streams
DataInputStream dis = new DataInputStream(s.getInputStream());
DataOutputStream dos = new DataOutputStream(s.getOutputStream());
System.out.println("Assigning new thread for this client");
// create a new thread object
Thread t = new ClientHandler(s, dis, dos);
// Invoking the start() method
t.start();
}
catch (Exception e) {
s.close();
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
// ClientHandler class
class ClientHandler extends Thread
{
DateFormat fordate = new SimpleDateFormat("yyyy/MM/dd");
DateFormat fortime = new SimpleDateFormat("hh:mm:ss");
final DataInputStream dis;
final DataOutputStream dos;
final Socket s;
// Constructor
public ClientHandler(Socket s, DataInputStream dis, DataOutputStream dos)
{
this.s = s;
this.dis = dis;
this.dos = dos;
}
#Override
public void run()
{
String received;
String toreturn;
while (true) {
try {
// Ask user what he wants
dos.writeUTF("What do you want?[Date | Time]..\n"+
"Type Exit to terminate connection.");
// receive the answer from client
received = dis.readUTF();
if(received.equals("Exit"))
{
System.out.println("Client " + this.s + " sends exit...");
System.out.println("Closing this connection.");
this.s.close();
System.out.println("Connection closed");
break;
}
// creating Date object
Date date = new Date();
// write on output stream based on the
// answer from the client
switch (received) {
case "Date" :
toreturn = fordate.format(date);
dos.writeUTF(toreturn);
break;
case "Time" :
toreturn = fortime.format(date);
dos.writeUTF(toreturn);
break;
default:
dos.writeUTF("Invalid input");
break;
}
}
catch (IOException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
try
{
// closing resources
this.dis.close();
this.dos.close();
}
catch(IOException e){
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
Here is my client program:
import java.io.*;
import java.net.*;
import java.util.Scanner;
// Client class
public class Client
{
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException
{
try
{
Scanner scn = new Scanner(System.in);
// getting localhost ip
InetAddress ip = InetAddress.getByName("localhost");
// establish the connection with server port 5056
Socket s = new Socket(ip, 5056);
// obtaining input and out streams
DataInputStream dis = new DataInputStream(s.getInputStream());
DataOutputStream dos = new DataOutputStream(s.getOutputStream());
// the following loop performs the exchange of
// information between client and client handler
while (true)
{
System.out.println(dis.readUTF());
String tosend = scn.nextLine();
dos.writeUTF(tosend);
// If client sends exit,close this connection
// and then break from the while loop
if(tosend.equals("Exit"))
{
System.out.println("Closing this connection : " + s);
s.close();
System.out.println("Connection closed");
break;
}
// printing date or time as requested by client
String received = dis.readUTF();
System.out.println(received);
}
// closing resources
scn.close();
dis.close();
dos.close();
}
catch(Exception e){
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}

Overview
Great question! To reiterate what was stated in the above comments, you are looking for a server-side shutdown. There are some way of handling this situation, and I can explain it with a brief example.
ExecutorServer
I will run through a modified example based off this example. Below find the server implementation.
class NetworkService implements Runnable {
private final ServerSocket serverSocket;
private final ExecutorService pool;
private final AtomicBoolean shouldExit;
public NetworkService(int port, int poolSize) throws IOException {
serverSocket = new ServerSocket(port);
pool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(poolSize);
shouldExit = new AtomicBoolean(false); // Thread-safe boolean
}
public void run() { // run the service
try {
// While we should not exit
while(!shouldExit.get()) {
try {
pool.execute(new ClientHandler(serverSocket.accept()));
} catch (SocketException e) {
if(shouldExit.get()) break; // Poison pill has been delivered, lets stop
// Error handling
}
}
} catch (IOException ex) {
pool.shutdown();
}
// Clean up the thread pool
shutdownAndAwaitTermination();
}
}
class ClientHandler implements Runnable {
private final Socket socket;
ClientHandler (Socket socket) { this.socket = socket; }
public void run() {
...
}
...
}
Here you will modify your current Server code to intimidate this structure. You have a similar make up currently but here we have added ExecutorService.
An Executor that provides methods to manage termination and methods that can produce a Future for tracking progress of one or more asynchronous tasks.
By dispatching your ClientHandler to an ExecutorService, you are utilizing a ThreadPool. Although this comes with plenty of benefits, the most significant ones are that you have more control over your multi-threaded service, the ThreadPool will manage thread utilization, and the application efficiency will increase tremendously.
Below is how you would attempt to shutdown and terminate all remaining threads:
void shutdownAndAwaitTermination(ExecutorService pool) {
pool.shutdown(); // Disable new tasks from being submitted
try {
// Wait a while for existing tasks to terminate
if (!pool.awaitTermination(60, TimeUnit.SECONDS)) {
pool.shutdownNow(); // Cancel currently executing tasks
// Wait a while for tasks to respond to being cancelled
if (!pool.awaitTermination(60, TimeUnit.SECONDS))
System.err.println("Pool did not terminate");
}
} catch (InterruptedException ie) {
// (Re-)Cancel if current thread also interrupted
pool.shutdownNow();
// Preserve interrupt status
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
}
Now, the question remains how do we shutdown the server? The above code shows a improved structure, but still have the issue of blocking on a serverSocket.accept()!
Solution
There are two ideas that come to mind when thinking of this scenario; a CLI or a GUI. Both have the same semantics, and the decision is ultimately up to you. For purposes of explaining, I will refer to a CLI approach.
Poison Pill
If you implement a new Thread() that handled all incoming commands from the CLI, this thread would act as a poison pill. The idea is to deliver a poison pill to the target such that can wake up/execute and die. The thread will change the shouldExit atomic boolean to true and create a new Socket(serverSocket.getInetAddress(), serverSocket.getLocalPort()).close(); to connect to the ServerSocket and immediately close it. In the above code, the application will no longer be blocking on the serverSocket.accept(). Instead, it will enter the try catch for SocketExceptions and test if a poison pill was utilized; If it was then lets clean up, if not lets error handle.
Timeout
You could also set a timeout on the ServerSocket such that it will throw an exception each time it cannot get a connection in that time interval with myServer.setSoTimeout(2000);. This will throw an InterruptedIOException and can be handled similarly to the poison pill where the flag is changed via a CLI command and it checks if it should exit in the catch block. If it should exit, lets clean up, if not lets error handle.

You can use pattern flag with volatile boolean variable, and you should place it in 'while' - when processing would be finished, turn it to false and the server would stop.
Another way - use thread pools and wait for them to finish in the main thread of your server.

Is there a timeout case that allows for code a block of code to be terminated after a specific amount of time? [duplicate]

In my main thread I have a while(listening) loop which calls accept() on my ServerSocket object, then starts a new client thread and adds it to a Collection when a new client is accepted.
I also have an Admin thread which I want to use to issue commands, like 'exit', which will cause all the client threads to be shut down, shut itself down, and shut down the main thread, by turning listening to false.
However, the accept() call in the while(listening) loop blocks, and there doesn't seem to be any way to interrupt it, so the while condition cannot be checked again and the program cannot exit!
Is there a better way to do this? Or some way to interrupt the blocking method?

You can call close() from another thread, and the accept() call will throw a SocketException.

Set timeout on accept(), then the call will timeout the blocking after specified time:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/net/SocketOptions.html#SO_TIMEOUT
Set a timeout on blocking Socket operations:
ServerSocket.accept();
SocketInputStream.read();
DatagramSocket.receive();
The option must be set prior to entering a blocking operation to take effect. If the timeout expires and the operation would continue to block, java.io.InterruptedIOException is raised. The Socket is not closed in this case.

Is calling close() on the ServerSocket an option?
http://java.sun.com/j2se/6/docs/api/java/net/ServerSocket.html#close%28%29
Closes this socket. Any thread currently blocked in accept() will throw a SocketException.

You can just create "void" socket for break serversocket.accept()
Server side
private static final byte END_WAITING = 66;
private static final byte CONNECT_REQUEST = 1;
while (true) {
Socket clientSock = serverSocket.accept();
int code = clientSock.getInputStream().read();
if (code == END_WAITING
/*&& clientSock.getInetAddress().getHostAddress().equals(myIp)*/) {
// End waiting clients code detected
break;
} else if (code == CONNECT_REQUEST) { // other action
// ...
}
}
Method for break server cycle
void acceptClients() {
try {
Socket s = new Socket(myIp, PORT);
s.getOutputStream().write(END_WAITING);
s.getOutputStream().flush();
s.close();
} catch (IOException e) {
}
}

The reason ServerSocket.close() throws an exception
is because you have an outputstream or an inputstream
attached to that socket.
You can avoid this exception safely by first closing the input and output streams.
Then try closing the ServerSocket.
Here is an example:
void closeServer() throws IOException {
try {
if (outputstream != null)
outputstream.close();
if (inputstream != null)
inputstream.close();
} catch (IOException e1) {
e1.printStackTrace();
}
if (!serversock.isClosed())
serversock.close();
}
}
You can call this method to close any socket from anywhere without getting an exception.

Use serverSocket.setSoTimeout(timeoutInMillis).

OK, I got this working in a way that addresses the OP's question more directly.
Keep reading past the short answer for a Thread example of how I use this.
Short answer:
ServerSocket myServer;
Socket clientSocket;
try {
myServer = new ServerSocket(port)
myServer.setSoTimeout(2000);
//YOU MUST DO THIS ANYTIME TO ASSIGN new ServerSocket() to myServer‼!
clientSocket = myServer.accept();
//In this case, after 2 seconds the below interruption will be thrown
}
catch (java.io.InterruptedIOException e) {
/* This is where you handle the timeout. THIS WILL NOT stop
the running of your code unless you issue a break; so you
can do whatever you need to do here to handle whatever you
want to happen when the timeout occurs.
*/
}
Real world example:
In this example, I have a ServerSocket waiting for a connection inside a Thread. When I close the app, I want to shut down the thread (more specifically, the socket) in a clean manner before I let the app close, so I use the .setSoTimeout() on the ServerSocket then I use the interrupt that is thrown after the timeout to check and see if the parent is trying to shut down the thread. If so, then I set close the socket, then set a flag indicating that the thread is done, then I break out of the Threads loop which returns a null.
package MyServer;
import javafx.concurrent.Task;
import java.io.IOException;
import java.net.ServerSocket;
import java.net.Socket;
import java.net.SocketException;
import javafx.concurrent.Task;
import java.io.IOException;
import java.net.ServerSocket;
import java.net.Socket;
import java.net.SocketException;
public class Server {
public Server (int port) {this.port = port;}
private boolean threadDone = false;
private boolean threadInterrupted = false;
private boolean threadRunning = false;
private ServerSocket myServer = null;
private Socket clientSocket = null;
private Thread serverThread = null;;
private int port;
private static final int SO_TIMEOUT = 5000; //5 seconds
public void startServer() {
if (!threadRunning) {
serverThread = new Thread(thisServerTask);
serverThread.setDaemon(true);
serverThread.start();
}
}
public void stopServer() {
if (threadRunning) {
threadInterrupted = true;
while (!threadDone) {
//We are just waiting for the timeout to exception happen
}
if (threadDone) {threadRunning = false;}
}
}
public boolean isRunning() {return threadRunning;}
private Task<Void> thisServerTask = new Task <Void>() {
#Override public Void call() throws InterruptedException {
threadRunning = true;
try {
myServer = new ServerSocket(port);
myServer.setSoTimeout(SO_TIMEOUT);
clientSocket = new Socket();
} catch (IOException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
while(true) {
try {
clientSocket = myServer.accept();
}
catch (java.io.InterruptedIOException e) {
if (threadInterrupted) {
try { clientSocket.close(); } //This is the clean exit I'm after.
catch (IOException e1) { e1.printStackTrace(); }
threadDone = true;
break;
}
} catch (SocketException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (IOException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
return null;
}
};
}
Then, in my Controller class ... (I will only show relevant code, massage it into your own code as needed)
public class Controller {
Server server = null;
private static final int port = 10000;
private void stopTheServer() {
server.stopServer();
while (server.isRunning() {
//We just wait for the server service to stop.
}
}
#FXML private void initialize() {
Platform.runLater(()-> {
server = new Server(port);
server.startServer();
Stage stage = (Stage) serverStatusLabel.getScene().getWindow();
stage.setOnCloseRequest(event->stopTheServer());
});
}
}
I hope this helps someone down the road.

Another thing you can try which is cleaner, is to check a flag in the accept loop, and then when your admin thread wants to kill the thread blocking on the accept, set the flag (make it thread safe) and then make a client socket connection to the listening socket.
The accept will stop blocking and return the new socket.
You can work out some simple protocol thing telling the listening thread to exit the thread cleanly.
And then close the socket on the client side.
No exceptions, much cleaner.

You can simply pass the timeout limit (milli seconds) as a parameter while calling accept function.
eg serverSocket.accept(1000);
automatically close the request after 1 sec

How to reconnect to a Server automatilly when server availble in java sockets

I have java client server application. Server is running or may not be connected. but we need to connect with ip and port.
Socket s=new Socket(ip,port);
if it is connected, socket will be created, else it throws IOException. then i will set a status of that connection as not connected in an object.
if connected, i will send data as commands. It will respond to that command with data. We send commands with output stream and read responce with input-stream of the socket.
I need to automatically reconnect to the server when server is available (wired or wifi connection).
How to Use Multi threading here
ex:
import java.io.IOException;
import java.net.InetSocketAddress;
import java.net.Socket;
public class ConnectionThread implements Runnable {
static class ConnectionStatus {
boolean connected = false;
public boolean isConnected() {
return connected;
}
public void setConnected(boolean connected) {
this.connected = connected;
}
}
ConnectionStatus status;
Socket socket;
String ip;
int port;
public ConnectionThread(ConnectionStatus status, String ip, int port) {
this.status = status;
this.ip = ip;
this.port = port;
}
public void connectAgain() throws IOException {
while (!status.isConnected()) {
socket = new Socket(ip, port);
status.setConnected(true);
}
}
public void run() {
try {
connectAgain();
} catch (IOException e) {
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
connectAgain();
} catch (InterruptedException e1) {
e1.printStackTrace();
} catch (IOException e1) {
e1.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
ConnectionStatus status = new ConnectionStatus();
status.setConnected(false);
ConnectionThread cthread = new ConnectionThread(status, "192.166.102.201", 1986);
Thread x = new Thread(cthread);
x.start();
System.out.println("Connected ..." + status.isConnected());
}
}
I need to send commands (data) only when connected to receive response.
I need to set the connected status to false when not connected
and to true when connected.
Based on connected status i will read from socket or write to socket steams.
I need to know when the connection is failed
and when the connection is available.
I think better to use propertychangelistener when connected property is changed.
is it right?

This loop really has no point.
while (!status.isConnected()) {
socket = new Socket(ip, port);
status.setConnected(true);
}
Whether it succeeds or fails it can never execute the loop more than once. It has exactly the same effect as just this:
socket = new Socket(ip, port);
status.setConnected(true);
The run will call this twice with a 1 second delay unless it doesn't throw an exception and succeeds. If you want it to keep trying until you connect, you need to catch the exception within the loop. eg
Socket s = new Socket();
SocketAddress sa = new InetSocketAddress("192.166.102.201", 1986);
while (!s.isConnected()) {
try {
s.connect(sa); // try the connection
} catch (IOException ex) {
// ignore we may have to try lots of times
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
// not sure how to handle this, maybe we should just give up.
}
}
}
Update: I had both the sleep and the connect in the same try block which meant it would never sleep but just keep the thread always busy. Moved the sleep to separate block.

Handling sockets in java

I am creating a socket to a server in java and after the socket is connected it creates a new thread which can access the socket input and output stream and this thread then blocks and processes the input lines when they come in.
I understand that the readln method on the BufferedReader will return null when the input stream ends. This doesn't necessarily mean that the socket is closed though does it? What does this mean? So I would then want to run the close method on the socket to close it nicely.
I also understand that the readln method can throw an IOException and that this is thrown after the close method is called on a socket if it is currently blocking. When else can this be thrown? Could the socket still be open after this is thrown or would it always be closed and ready for garbage collection etc.
This is the code I have at the moment and I don't really know how to handle disconnects properly. At the moment I think this could end up in a deadlock if the disconnect method is called whilst the socket is waiting for a line because disconnect will call close on the socket. This will then throw the IOException on readLine and this will then result in that catch block calling disconnect again.
public class SocketManager {
private Socket socket = null;
private PrintWriter out = null;
private BufferedReader in = null;
private String ip;
private int port;
private Object socketLock = new Object();
public SocketManager(String ip, int port) {
this.ip = ip;
this.port = port;
}
public void connect() throws UnableToConnectException, AlreadyConnectedException {
synchronized(socketLock) {
if (socket == null || socket.isClosed()) {
throw (new AlreadyConnectedException());
}
try {
socket = new Socket(ip, port);
out = new PrintWriter(socket.getOutputStream(), true);
in = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(socket.getInputStream()));
} catch (IOException e) {
throw (new UnableToConnectException());
}
new Thread(new SocketThread()).start();
}
}
public void disconnect() throws NotConnectedException {
synchronized(socketLock) {
if (isConnected()) {
throw (new NotConnectedException());
}
try {
socket.close();
} catch (IOException e) {}
}
}
public boolean isConnected() {
synchronized(socketLock) {
return (socket != null && !socket.isClosed());
}
}
private class SocketThread implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
String inputLine = null;
try {
while((inputLine = in.readLine()) != null) {
// do stuff
}
if (isConnected()) {
try {
disconnect();
} catch (NotConnectedException e) {}
}
} catch (IOException e) {
// try and disconnect (if not already disconnected) and end thread
if (isConnected()) {
try {
disconnect();
} catch (NotConnectedException e1) {}
}
}
}
}
}
I basically want to know the best way of achieving the following:
Writing a connect method that connects to a socket and starts a separate thread listening for input.
Writing a disconnect method that disconnects from the socket and terminates the thread that's listening for input.
Handling the scenario of the connection to the remote socket being broken.
I have read through the java tutorial on sockets but in my opinion it doesn't really cover these in much detail.
Thanks!

When I said that it could end up as a deadlock I think I was wrong.
What would happen is:
disconnect() called whilst in.readLine() blocking
socket.close() executed.
in.readline() throws IOException.
I was then thinking that the exception handler in the SocketThread would call disconnect whilst disconnect is waiting for that exception to finish. It wouldn't matter through because they are both different threads so the code in disconnect() would continue whilst the exception is being caught in the SocketThread. The SocketThread would then call disconnect() but would then have to wait until the first instance of disconnect() finished. Then disconnect() would execute again but would get the NotConnectedException thrown which would be caught in the SocketThread and nothing would happen. The SocketThread would exit and that's the wanted result.
However I have looked into the socket class and it also contains these methods:
shutdownInput()
shutdownOutput()
shutdownInput() sends the end EOF symbol into the input stream meaning in.readline() returns null and the loop exits cleanly. shutdownOutput() sends the TCP termination sequence informing the server that it's disconnecting.
Calling both of these before socket.close() makes more sense because it means the thread will exit nicely instead of exiting as a result of an exception being thrown which has more overhead.
So this is the modified code:
public class SocketManager {
private Socket socket = null;
private PrintWriter out = null;
private BufferedReader in = null;
private String ip;
private int port;
private Object socketLock = new Object();
public SocketManager(String ip, int port) {
this.ip = ip;
this.port = port;
}
public void connect() throws UnableToConnectException, AlreadyConnectedException {
synchronized(socketLock) {
if (socket == null || socket.isClosed()) {
throw (new AlreadyConnectedException());
}
try {
socket = new Socket(ip, port);
out = new PrintWriter(socket.getOutputStream(), true);
in = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(socket.getInputStream()));
} catch (IOException e) {
throw (new UnableToConnectException());
}
new Thread(new SocketThread()).start();
}
}
public void disconnect() throws NotConnectedException {
synchronized(socketLock) {
if (isConnected()) {
throw (new NotConnectedException());
}
try {
socket.shutdownInput();
} catch (IOException e) {}
try {
socket.shutdownOutput();
} catch (IOException e) {}
try {
socket.close();
} catch (IOException e) {}
}
}
public boolean isConnected() {
synchronized(socketLock) {
return (socket != null && !socket.isClosed());
}
}
private class SocketThread implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
String inputLine = null;
try {
while((inputLine = in.readLine()) != null) {
// do stuff (probably in another thread)
}
// it will get here if socket.shutdownInput() has been called (in disconnect)
// or possibly when the server disconnects the clients
// if it is here as a result of socket.shutdownInput() in disconnect()
// then isConnected() will block until disconnect() finishes.
// then isConnected() will return false and the thread will terminate.
// if it ended up here because the server disconnected the client then
// isConnected() won't block and return true meaning that disconnect()
// will be called and the socket will be completely closed
if (isConnected()) {
try {
disconnect();
} catch (NotConnectedException e) {}
}
} catch (IOException e) {
// try and disconnect (if not already disconnected) and end thread
if (isConnected()) {
try {
disconnect();
} catch (NotConnectedException e1) {}
}
}
}
}
}

In order to be sure that all resources associated with the socket are relased you have to call close() method when you finish work with that socket.
Typical IO exception handling pattern is that you catch it and then perform best efforts to clean everything calling close() method.
So the only thing you have to do is to ensure that you call close() on every socket during it's lifetime.

You're on the right track. I wouldn't use "readline", only raw read, and "do stuff"
should be limited to constructing a queue of received data. Likewise writing replies
ought to be a separate thread that empties a queue of data to be sent.
Despite socket's guarantees of integrity, stuff will go wrong and you'll sometimes receive data that doesn't make sense. There's a crapload of stuff below "read" and "write" and no system is perfect or bug free. Add your own wrapper with checksums at the level of YOUR read and write so you can be sure you're receiving what was intended to be sent.

How should I use AsynchronousServerSocketChannel for accepting connections?

I would like to write an asynchronous server using Java 7 and NIO 2.
But how should I use AsynchronousServerSocketChannel?
E.g. if I start with:
final AsynchronousServerSocketChannel server =
AsynchronousServerSocketChannel.open().bind(
new InetSocketAddress(port));
Then when I do server.accept(), the program terminates because that call is asynchronous. And if I put that code in an infinite loop, an AcceptPendingException is thrown.
Any suggestions on how to write a simple asynchronous server using AsynchronousServerSocketChannel?
Here is my full example (similar to the example in the JavaDoc):
import java.io.IOException;
import java.net.InetSocketAddress;
import java.nio.channels.AsynchronousServerSocketChannel;
import java.nio.channels.AsynchronousSocketChannel;
import java.nio.channels.CompletionHandler;
public class AsyncServer {
public static void main(String[] args) {
int port = 8060;
try {
final AsynchronousServerSocketChannel server =
AsynchronousServerSocketChannel.open().bind(
new InetSocketAddress(port));
System.out.println("Server listening on " + port);
server.accept("Client connection",
new CompletionHandler<AsynchronousSocketChannel, Object>() {
public void completed(AsynchronousSocketChannel ch, Object att) {
System.out.println("Accepted a connection");
// accept the next connection
server.accept("Client connection", this);
// handle this connection
//TODO handle(ch);
}
public void failed(Throwable exc, Object att) {
System.out.println("Failed to accept connection");
}
});
} catch (IOException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}

You are on the right track, calling accept() from the completed callback in order to accept more connections should work.
A simple (but ugly) way to prevent the thread from terminating is simply to loop until the thread is interrupted.
// yes, sleep() is evil, but sometimes I don't care
while (true) {
Thread.sleep(1000);
}
A cleaner way is to use AsynchronousChannelGroup. For instance:
AsynchronousChannelGroup group = AsynchronousChannelGroup.withThreadPool(Executors
.newSingleThreadExecutor());
AsynchronousServerSocketChannel server = AsynchronousServerSocketChannel.open(group).bind(
new InetSocketAddress(port));
// (insert server.accept() logic here)
// wait until group.shutdown()/shutdownNow(), or the thread is interrupted:
group.awaitTermination(Long.MAX_VALUE, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
You can tune how threads are handled, see the AsynchronousChannelGroup API docs for more information.

Using asynchronous accept is useful if you have something else to do in the same thread. In you case, you are not doing something else so I would use
while(true) {
AsynchronousSocketChannel socket = server.accept().get();
System.out.println("Accepted " + socket);
socket.close();
}

Another alternative is to have your main method wait on a signal before returning. Then if you have some kind of external shutdown command, you just notify the signal and the main thread shuts down.
private static final Object shutdownSignal = new Object();
public static void main(String[] args) {
...
synchronized (shutdownSignal) {
try {
shutdownSignal.wait();
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
// handle it!
}
}
}

Use count down latch like the following example
final AsynchronousServerSocketChannel serverChannel = AsynchronousServerSocketChannel.open();
InetSocketAddress address = new InetSocketAddress(port);
serverChannel.bind(address);
final CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(1);
serverChannel.accept(null, new CompletionHandler<AsynchronousSocketChannel, Object>() {
#Override
public void completed(final AsynchronousSocketChannel channel, Object attachment) {
serverChannel.accept(null, this);
}
});
try {
latch.await();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}