Exactly, the message "Caused by: java.rmi.server.ExportException: Port already 
in use: 1099; nested exception is: 
        java.net.BindException: Address already in use" shows some port 
conflicts.

Either you have more than one Karaf container running or this port is used by 
other software on your machine.

Regards,
Andrei.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aki Yoshida [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Donnerstag, 27. November 2014 11:23
> To: [email protected]; jim ma
> Subject: Re: xkms test failures
> 
> I think you have another karaf instance running on your box.
> 
> Exception in thread "JMX Connector Thread
> [service:jmx:rmi://0.0.0.0:44444/jndi/rmi://0.0.0.0:1099/karaf-root]"
> java.lang.RuntimeException:
> Port already in use: 44444;
> 
> 2014-11-27 3:28 GMT+01:00 Jim Ma <[email protected]>:
> > Hi,
> > Does anyone hit these failures when run xkms integration tests ? I
> > tried these tests from cxf 2.7.13 tag  in different machines(Fedora
> > 20/oracle
> > jdk7) and got the same failures.It looks the karaf container didn't
> > start well and there are connections timeout. Full error stacktrace,
> > please see the attached file.
> > Do we have to involve karaf and bundle things for the xkms test ? Is
> > there something we can improve to make these test more robust ?
> >
> > ValidatorCRLTest.org.apache.cxf.xkms.itests.handlers.validator.Validat
> > orCRLTest
> > » Runtime
> >   JUnit4Provider.invoke:124->executeTestSet:153->execute:264 » Runtime
> > Container...
> >
> > ValidatorTest.org.apache.cxf.xkms.itests.handlers.validator.ValidatorT
> > est
> > » Runtime
> >   JUnit4Provider.invoke:124->executeTestSet:153->execute:264 » Runtime
> > Container...
> >   XKMSServiceTest.org.apache.cxf.xkms.itests.service.XKMSServiceTest »
> > Runtime C...
> >   JUnit4Provider.invoke:124->executeTestSet:153->execute:264 » Runtime
> > Container...
> >   XKRSSDisableTest.org.apache.cxf.xkms.itests.service.XKRSSDisableTest
> > » Runtime
> >   JUnit4Provider.invoke:124->executeTestSet:153->execute:264 » Runtime
> > Container...
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jim

Reply via email to