[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-3521?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14659826#comment-14659826
]
Rob Godfrey commented on QPID-3521:
-----------------------------------
Looking at it briefly yesterday, my thoughts were in the same direction -
moving more of the responsibility into AMQProtocolHandler and moving
AMQProtocolHandler into the same package as AMQConnection.
In terms of visibility of methods, my view is that it is safer to "hide" the
locks as much as possible and expose methods (like doWithAllLocks) where the
locking order is guaranteed to be "safe". By allowing/encouraging other
classes to take out the locks on Connections/Sessions we are making it more
difficult to ensure we always use safe lock acquisition orders.
So... I think I would be doing both 1) and 2) :-)
> failover process for the 0-8 client does not clear the pre-dispatch queue
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: QPID-3521
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-3521
> Project: Qpid
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Java Client
> Reporter: Robbie Gemmell
> Assignee: Alex Rudyy
> Labels: failover
> Attachments: clear-dispatch-queue-on-failover.diff
>
>
> failover process for the 0-8 client does not clear the pre-dispatch queue,
> only the consumer receive queue.
> This is currently masked by an issue with the rollbackMark. The changes made
> in QPID-3546 to fix the 0-10 client path need to be applied to the 0-8/9/9-1
> client path when this issue is resolved.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org
