Implemented object destruction; wired up some missing stuff; created a

test server to make some testing easier; various other cleanups.


git-svn-id: svn+ssh://src.earth.threerings.net/narya/trunk@188 542714f4-19e9-0310-aa3c-eee0fc999fb1

src/java/com/threerings/presents/client/ClientDObjectMgr.java

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 //
-// $Id: ClientDObjectMgr.java,v 1.4 2001/07/19 07:09:16 mdb Exp $
+// $Id: ClientDObjectMgr.java,v 1.5 2001/08/07 20:38:58 mdb Exp $
 
 package com.threerings.cocktail.cher.client;
 
@@ -75,6 +75,13 @@ public class ClientDObjectMgr
         _comm.postMessage(new ForwardEventRequest(tevent));
     }
 
+    // inherit documentation from the interface
+    public void destroyObject (int oid)
+    {
+        // forward an object destroyed event to the server
+        postEvent(new ObjectDestroyedEvent(oid));
+    }
+
     // inherit documentation from the interface
     public void removedLastSubscriber (DObject obj)
     {
@@ -154,8 +161,29 @@ public class ClientDObjectMgr
             return;
         }
 
-        // have the object pass this event on to its subscribers
-        target.notifySubscribers(event);
+        try {
+            // apply the event to the object
+            boolean notify = event.applyToObject(target);
+
+            // if this is an object destroyed event, we need to remove the
+            // object from our object table
+            if (event instanceof ObjectDestroyedEvent) {
+                Log.info("Uncaching destroyed object " +
+                         "[oid=" + target.getOid() + "].");
+                _ocache.remove(target.getOid());
+            }
+
+            // have the object pass this event on to its subscribers if
+            // desired
+            if (notify) {
+                target.notifySubscribers(event);
+            }
+
+        } catch (Exception e) {
+            Log.warning("Failure processing event [event=" + event +
+                        ", target=" + target + "].");
+            Log.logStackTrace(e);
+        }
     }
 
     /**
@@ -193,7 +221,19 @@ public class ClientDObjectMgr
      */
     protected void notifyFailure (int oid)
     {
-        Log.info("Get failed: " + oid);
+        // let the penders know that the object is not available
+        PendingRequest req = (PendingRequest)_penders.remove(oid);
+        if (req == null) {
+            Log.warning("Failed to get object, but no one cares?! " +
+                        "[oid=" + oid + "].");
+            return;
+        }
+
+        for (int i = 0; i < req.targets.size(); i++) {
+            Subscriber target = (Subscriber)req.targets.get(i);
+            // and let them know that the object is in
+            target.requestFailed(oid, null);
+        }
     }
 
     /**

src/java/com/threerings/presents/client/Communicator.java

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 //
-// $Id: Communicator.java,v 1.12 2001/08/03 02:11:20 mdb Exp $
+// $Id: Communicator.java,v 1.13 2001/08/07 20:38:58 mdb Exp $
 
 package com.threerings.cocktail.cher.client;
 
@@ -91,6 +91,9 @@ public class Communicator
             return;
         }
 
+        // post a logoff message
+        postMessage(new LogoffRequest());
+
         // let our reader and writer know that it's time to go
         if (_reader != null) {
             // if logoff() is being called by the client as part of a
@@ -110,28 +113,12 @@ public class Communicator
         if (_writer != null) {
             // shutting down the writer thread is simpler because we can
             // post a termination message on the queue and be sure that it
-            // will receive it. we do run the risk that it is in the
-            // middle of trying to send a message when we close the
-            // socket, but in theory the send will fail, it will complain
-            // and then it will cleanly exit. if we were uber paranoid
-            // about JVMs misbehaving on simultaneous close()/write(), we
-            // could wait here for the writer thread to exit, but that
-            // makes me even more nervous because I know that some JVMs
-            // don't handle Thread.join() properly (hopefully no one is
-            // still using those JVMs but one can never be sure)
+            // will receive it. when the writer thread has delivered our
+            // logoff request and exited, we will complete the logoff
+            // process by closing our socket and invoking the
+            // clientDidLogoff callback
             _writer.shutdown();
         }
-
-        // close down our socket
-        try {
-            _socket.close();
-        } catch (IOException cle) {
-            Log.warning("Error closing failed socket: " + cle);
-        }
-        _socket = null;
-
-        // let the client observers know that we're logged off
-        _client.notifyObservers(Client.CLIENT_DID_LOGOFF, null);
     }
 
     /**
@@ -226,8 +213,20 @@ public class Communicator
     {
         // clear out our writer reference
         _writer = null;
-
         Log.info("Writer thread exited.");
+
+        // now that the writer thread has gone away, we can safely close
+        // our socket and let the client know that the logoff process has
+        // completed
+        try {
+            _socket.close();
+        } catch (IOException cle) {
+            Log.warning("Error closing failed socket: " + cle);
+        }
+        _socket = null;
+
+        // let the client observers know that we're logged off
+        _client.notifyObservers(Client.CLIENT_DID_LOGOFF, null);
     }
 
     /**