We Keep Coding

App Engine: Keep Socket Open more than 2 Minutes

Using the App Engine Trusted Tester Sockets to connect to APNS. Writing to socket works fine.
But the problem is that the Socket gets reclaimed after 2 minutes of inactivity. It says in the Trusted Tester Website that any socket operation keeps the socket alive for further 2 minutes. It is nicer to keep the socket open until APNS decides to close the connection.
After trying pretty much all of the Socket API methods short of writing to the Output Stream, Socket gets closed after 2 minutes no matter what. What have I missed?
Deployed on java backend.

You can't keep a socket connected to APNS artifically open; without sending actual push notifications. The only way to keep it open is to send some arbitrary data/bytes but that would result in an immediate closure of the socket; APNS closes the connection as soon as it detects something that does not conform to the protocol, i.e. something that is not an actual push notification.
SO_KEEPALIVE
What about SO_KEEPALIVE? App Engine explicitly says it is supported. I think it just means it won't throw an exception when you call Socket.setKeepAlive(true); calls wanted to set socket options raised Not Implemented exceptions before. Even if you enable keep-alive your socket will be reclaimed (closed) if you don't send something for more than 2 minutes; at least on App Engine as of now.
Actually, it's not a big surprise. RFC1122 that specifies TCP Keep Alive explicitly states that TCP Keep Alives are not to be sent more than once every two hours, and then, it is only necessary if there was no other traffic. Although, it also says that this interval must be also configurable, there is no API on java.net.Socket you could use to configure that (most probably because it's highly OS dependent) and I doubt it would be set to 2 minutes on App Engine.
SO_TIMEOUT
What about SO_TIMEOUT? It is for something completely else. The javadoc of Socket.setSoTimeout() states:
Enable/disable SO_TIMEOUT with the specified timeout, in milliseconds. With this option set to a non-zero timeout, a read() call on the InputStream associated with this Socket will block for only this amount of time. If the timeout expires, a java.net.SocketTimeoutException is raised, though the Socket is still valid. The option must be enabled prior to entering the blocking operation to have effect. The timeout must be > 0. A timeout of zero is interpreted as an infinite timeout.
That is, when read() is blocking for too long because there's nothing to read you can say "ok, I don't want to wait (block) anymore; let's do something else instead". It's not going to help with our "2 minutes" problem.
What then?
The only way you can work around this problem is this: detect when a connection is reclaimed/closed then throw it away and open a new connection. And there is a library which supports exactly that.
Check out java-apns-gae.
It's an open-source Java APNS library that was specifically designed to work (and be used) on Google App Engine.
https://github.com/ZsoltSafrany/java-apns-gae

Did you try getSoLinger()? That may be the getSocketOpt that works (kind of) currently and it may reset the 2 minute timeout. In theory, also doing a zero byte read would as well but I'm not sure that would, if you try that, use this method on the inputstream.
public int read(byte b[], int off, int len)
If these suggestions don't work, please file an issue with the App Engine issue tracker.
There will be some other fixes coming, e.g. using socket options etc.

Use getpeername().
From https://developers.google.com/appengine/docs/java/sockets/overview ...
Sockets may be reclaimed after 2 minutes of inactivity; any socket
operation (e.g. getpeername) keeps the socket alive for a further 2
minutes. (Notice that you cannot Select between multiple available
sockets because that requires java.nio.SocketChannel which is not
currently supported.)

Opening a database connection in a constructor, when should I close it?

well, I've been thinking of making database requests a little faster by keeping the connection to the database open as long as the object is being used. So I was thinking of opening the connection in the constructor of that class.
Now the question is, how can I close the connection after I stopped using? I have to call close() somewhere, don't I?
I've been reading about the finalize() method, but people seemed to be skeptical about usage of this method anywhere at all. I'd expect it to have something like a destructor, but Java doesn't have that, so?
So could anyone provide me with a solution? Thanks in advance.

I would suggest that you rather implement database connection pooling if the application would allow it. With connection pooling a pool of connections would be created and stay connected to the database. Your application would then grab a open/unused connection from the pool use it and return it to the pool.
This would allow you to acquire connections faster and you won't have to modify your classes too much. Database connection pooling is a great technique if you need to scale your application.
The other benefit is that your database connection pool will be managed by some sort of driver which will take care of opening connections, keeping them open, growing the pool if required and also shrinking the pool when extra connections are not used for a certain amount of time. This would be similar to the code you are trying to implement in the constructor and finalization methods.
Generally speaking you aqquire a database connection only when needed and release it as soon as possible.

I would recommend to make your class an implementor of java.io.Closeable. According to this interface you will have to implement void close() throws IOException, which all clients of the class will call, because it's a good practice to close Closeable classes after use.

Can I leave SOAPConnection open forever?

Can I make SOAPConnection open forever? That is not calling connection.close() after soap request.

Q: Can I make SOAPConnection open forever?
A: In theory, yes.
In practice, your connection will become stale and useless the moment the other endpoint hangs up on you.
It isn't necessarily a bad strategy to:
a) open the connection initially and read whatever you need
b) simply leave the connection open
c) check for errors (which you need to do anyway)
d) close and re-open only when necessary (when an attempted read fails)
Just a thought...

there may be memory issues and as pointed out by the other user stale soap connections will be killed by routers

Are you talking about SAAJ?
The underlying TCP connection is usually cached for a specific amount of time.
Either the amount of time the server endpoint specified in the HTTP header or the amount of time JVM keeps it open.
So if the connection remains idle for too long it will be releashed.
I am not sure how long it will remain open though

You can do whatever you want do, But the best practice is something especially IO connection if you don't need use it again please close/release it, a numerous resources in memory can absolutely leak your program or even break it down.
But I am not sure whether there have a permanent principle in SOAPConnection that make a automatic closure after fixed time.

Keeping persistent connections from a home-made Java server

I've built a simple Java program that works as a server locally.
At the moment it does a few things, such as previews directories, forwards to index.html if directory contains it, sends Last-Modified header and responds properly to a client's If-Modifed-Since request.
What I need to do now is make my program accept persistent connections. It's threaded at the moment so that each connection has it's own thread. I want to put my entire thread code within a loop that continues until either Connection: close, or a specified timeout.
Does anybody have any ideas where to start?
Edit: This is a university project, and has to be done without the use of Frameworks.
I have a main method, which loops indefinitely, each time it loops it creates a Socket object, a HTTPThread object is then created (A class of my own creation) - that processes the single request.
I want to allow multiple requests to work within a single connection making use of the Connection: keep-alive request header. I expect to use a loop in my HTTPThread class, I'm just not sure how to pass multiple requests.
Thanks in advance :)

I assume that you are implementing the HTTP protocol code yourself starting with the Socket APIs. And that you are implementing the persistent connections part of the HTTP spec.
You can put the code in the loop as you propose, and use Socket.setSoTimeout to set the timeout on blocking operations, and hence your HTTP timeouts. You don't need to do anything to reuse the streams for your connection ... apart from not closing them.
I would point out that there are much easier ways to implement a web server. There are many existing Java web server frameworks and application servers, or you could repurpose the Apache HTTP protocol stacks.

If it should act like a web service: Open 2 sockets from the client side, one for requests, one for
responses. Keep the sockets and streams open.
You need to define a separator to notify the other side that a
transfer is over. A special bit string for a binary, a special
character (usually newline) for a text-based protocol (like XML).
If you really try to implement an own http-server, you should rather make use of a library that already implements the HTTP 1.1 connection-keepalive standard.

Some ideas to get you started:
This wikipedia article describes HTTP 1.1 persistent connections:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_persistent_connection
You want to not close the socket, but after some inactive time period (apache 2.2 uses 5 seconds) you want to close it.
You have two ways to implement:
in your thread do not close the socket and do not exit the thread, but instead put a read timeout on the socket (whatever you want to support). When you call read it will block and if the timeout expires then you close the socket, else you read next request. The downside of this is that each persistent connection holds both a thread and a socket for whatever your max wait period is. Meaning that your solution doesn't scale because you're holding threads for too long (but may be fine for the purposes of a school project)!
You can get around the limitation of (1) by maintaining a list of tuples {socket,timestamp}, having a background thread monitor and close connections that timeout, and using NIO to detect a new read on an existing open socket. So after you finish reading the initial request you just exit the thread (returning it to the thread pool). Obviously this is much more complicated but it has the benefit of freeing up request threads.

Java socket not throwing exceptions on a dead socket?

We have a simple client server architecture between our mobile device and our server both written in Java. An extremely simple ServerSocket and Socket implementation. However one problem is that when the client terminates abruptly (without closing the socket properly) the server does not know that it is disconnected. Furthermore, the server can continue to write to this socket without getting any exceptions. Why?
According to documentation Java sockets should throw exceptions if you try to write to a socket that is not reachable on the other end!

The connection will eventually be timed out by Retransmit Timeout (RTO). However, the RTO is calculated using a complicated algorithm based on network latency (RTT), see this RFC,
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2988.txt
So on a mobile network, this can be minutes. Wait 10 minutes to see if you can get a timeout.
The solution to this kind of problem is to add a heart-beat in your own application protocol and tear down connection when you don't get ACK for the heartbeat.

The key word here (without closing the socket properly).
Sockets should always be acquired and disposed of in this way:
final Socket socket = ...; // connect code
try
{
use( socket ); // use socket
}
finally
{
socket.close( ); // dispose
}
Even with this precautions you should specify application timeouts, specific to your protocol.
My experience had shown, that unfortunately you cannot use any of the Socket timeout functionality reliably ( e.g. there is no timeout for write operations and even read operations may, sometimes, hang forever ).
That's why you need a watchdog thread that enforces your application timeouts and disposes of sockets that have been unresponsive for a while.
One convenient way of doing this is by initializing Socket and ServerSocket through corresponding channels in java.nio. The main advantage of such sockets is that they are Interruptible, that way you can simply interrupt the thread that does socket protocol and be sure that socket is properly disposed off.
Notice that you should enforce application timeouts on both sides, as it is only a matter of time and bad luck when you may experience unresponsive sockets.

TCP/IP communications can be very strange. TCP will retry for quite a while at the bottom layers of the stack without ever letting the upper layers know that anything happened.
I would fully expect that after some time period (30 seconds to a few minutes) you should see an error, but I haven't tested this I'm just going off how TCP apps tend to work.
You might be able to tighten the TCP specs (retry, timeout, etc) but again, haven't messed with it much.
Also, it may be that I'm totally wrong and the implementation of Java you are using is just flaky.

To answer the first part of the question (about not knowing that the client has disconnected abruptly), in TCP, you can't know whether a connection has ended until you try to use it.
The notion of guaranteed delivery in TCP is quite subtle: delivery isn't actually guaranteed to the application at the other end (it depends on what guaranteed means really). Section 2.6 of RFC 793 (TCP) gives more details on this topic. This thread on the Restlet-discuss list and this thread on the Linux kernel list might also be of interest.
For the second part (not detecting when you write to this socket), this is probably a question of buffer and timeout (as others have already suggested).

I am facing the same problem.
I think when you register the socket with a selector it doesn't throw any exception.
Are you using a selector with your socket?