Related: #3156
Motivation:
Let's say we have a channel with the following pipeline configuration:
HEAD --> [E1] H1 --> [E2] H2 --> TAIL
when the channel is deregistered, the channelUnregistered() methods of
H1 and H2 will be invoked from the executor thread of E1 and E2
respectively. To ensure that the channelUnregistered() methods are
invoked from the correct thread, new one-time tasks will be created
accordingly and be scheduled via Executor.execute(Runnable).
As soon as the one-time tasks are scheduled,
DefaultChannelPipeline.fireChannelUnregistered() will start to remove
all handlers from the pipeline via teardownAll(). This process is
performed in reversed order of event propagation. i.e. H2 is removed
first, and then H1 is removed.
If the channelUnregistered() event has been passed to H2 before H2 is
removed, a user does not see any problem.
If H2 has been removed before channelUnregistered() event is passed to
H2, a user will often see the following confusing warning message:
An exceptionCaught() event was fired, and it reached at the tail of
the pipeline. It usually means the last handler in the pipeline did
not handle the exception.
Modifications:
To ensure that the handlers are removed *after* all events are
propagated, traverse the pipeline in ascending order before performing
the actual removal.
Result:
A user does not get the confusing warning message anymore.
46576fd2ff