Thanks for the feedback - it's in there as AMQ-1116 -----Original Message----- From: James Strachan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 10:38 AM To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org Subject: Re: failover mode and client shutdown
Sounds like a great idea to me :) Please go ahead and submit a jira with the patch and we'll get it integrated ASAP On 1/4/07, Chris Hofstaedter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I ran into this issue as well on <= 4.0.2. I never tested it against > 4.1. The FailoverTransport doesn't shutdown if it is disconnected at > the time of the shutdown. > > I believe that the root cause is in the FailoverTransport.oneway(Command > command) function which will hold onto the command and keep trying to > reconnect until the message is sent or the transport is disposed. > > I applied a local patch that seems to solve the problem. Note that I've > only tested the patch against 4.0.2. > > Specifically, I early return from the oneway function if the command is > ShutdownInfo and the connectedTransport is null. This seems to solve > the problem in that I get clean shutdowns on the client when failover is > true and the client is presently disconnected. > > Does this seem like a reasonable patch? Should I create a JIRA with > this info? > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Strachan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 4:46 AM > To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org > Subject: Re: failover mode and client shutdown > > There could be a bug relating to closes with the failover transport > possibly, but the ActiveMQConnection does wait up to the closeTimeout > for a close to succeed before shutting down - so you could try reduce > the timeout. > > http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/maven/activemq-core/apidocs/org/apa > che/activemq/ActiveMQConnection.html#setCloseTimeout(int) > > > On 12/12/06, Keith Irwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Folks-- > > > > When we have clients running and we take down AMQ (<= 4.1.0), then > > attempt to shutdown the clients with Control-C (rather than kill the > > JVM with a -9), the clients won't shut down. It's as if a "close" on > > the failover connection never reaches the amq client classes. > > > > I note that in the 4.1.0 release notes, this issue is referenced, and > > the advice is to set the maxReconnectAttempts (or similar) property to > > something non-zero. > > > > The problem is that we don't want there to be a max number of > > attempts. Unless we specifically want to take down the client (say, > > for an apt-get package upgrade), we want it to keep on trying forever. > > > > SO, my question: Is there an architectural reason for not being able > > to close a failover connection if AMQ is down? > > > > If it isn't impossible due to tradeoffs elsewhere in the code base, we > > might be willing to submit a patch to fix the issue. > > > > Our only other recourse is to attempt to close the connections in > > separate threads, then timeout those threads after a while and fall > > out the end of the java process. > > > > For instance: > > > > Thread th = new Thread(new Runnable() { > > public void run() { > > connection.close(); > > } > > }); > > th.start(); > > > > // give up after 2 seconds > > Thread.currentThread().join(2000); > > > > I guess this is do-able, but it seems, you know, some how, well, > wrong. > > > > So, is it worth investigating a patch to AMQ? > > > > Keith > > > > > -- > > James > ------- > http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ > -- James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
