Alrighty. I've got "transactionSupport" ready. Apparently that hasn't worked for some time.
The nice thing too is that gives the user an "out" if they want to revert to the non-spec behavior: Right now, connection factories are non-xa, by the spec says they should be by default. If someone upgrades and desires the old non-xa behavior, they can set transactionSupport=none on the connection factory. I'm fairly confident in this merge request, the only part I really don't know about is the enlistResource() when I enlist XASession. It works though, and from the examples I've seen it seems to be the correct way to enlist a resource. I've just never messed with that API before. Anyway, eyes appreciated, after I update my PRs on github I'll give it a day for review and then merge it in. Thanks! On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 9:27 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: > Just noticed in JmsConnectionFactoryBuilder this is present already with > the attribute "transactionSupport". I need to tie that into my patch before > it's merged > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 4:30 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I just checked Wildfly, they do the same thing as Liberty. I agree with >> your statement for the "completely correct" fix, ideally that's the place >> to do it, but might take awhile to get a release out. >> >> On another note: I know the spec says, "Ignore all arguments to >> connection.create*(int mode)" methods. Yet I can think of a lot of >> scenarios where having a non-JTA connection pool is very handy (for >> instance, logging over JMS). We have the option to have non-JTA Database >> connections, I feel though we should be able to declare whether or not a >> jms connection pool participates in JTA. >> >> I'm thinking maybe we should have an `xa=true/false` parameter in the >> connection pool declaration. Would that be ok? >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 3:43 PM David Jencks <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I checked the Open Liberty TransactionSynchronizationRegistry, and it >>> interprets “active transaction” to mean “any transaction on the thread, no >>> matter it’s state”. So I think that it would be best to decide to do the >>> same in the Geronimo TM, deciding that the java doc is ambiguous as to the >>> meaning of “active” and the most useful meaning can be picked rather than >>> the most literal. >>> >>> Whether this is practical for the next TomEE, I don’t know. >>> >>> David Jencks >>> >>> > On Aug 27, 2019, at 8:25 AM, David Jencks <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > I think the java doc for getResource might have been written >>> thoughtlessly, and more appropriate behavior would be an ISE only for >>> STATUS_NO_TRANSACTION; literally the geronimo implementation is too lax, as >>> “marked rollback” is not status “active”. Is there anyone who’s opinion we >>> might ask? >>> > >>> > I rather thought the “ignore session type” logic was supposed to be >>> put into the RA, but I don’t recall if or how I dealt with this in Geronimo. >>> > >>> > So I’d prefer these issues be dealt with elsewhere but don’t see much >>> practical alternative to your implementation. >>> > >>> > Nice to see someone working on XA:-) >>> > >>> > thanks! >>> > David Jencks >>> > >>> >> On Aug 26, 2019, at 1:45 PM, Jonathan S. Fisher <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> I've narrowed down the problem to AutoConnectionTracker. It's not >>> >> completing, which isn't allowing the connections to be returned to >>> the pool. >>> >> >>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/blob/master/container/openejb-core/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/resource/AutoConnectionTracker.java#L174 >>> >> >>> >> getResource() is throwing an IllegalStateException. The JavaDoc ( >>> >> >>> https://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/javax/transaction/TransactionSynchronizationRegistry.html#getResource-java.lang.Object- >>> ) >>> >> states it should throw an ISE if a current transaction is not Active. >>> The >>> >> transaction is in the state ROLLED_BACK when AutoConnectionTracker >>> tries to >>> >> call getResource(). >>> >> >>> >> I think the Geronimo implementation ( >>> >> >>> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-txmanager/blame/trunk/geronimo-transaction/src/main/java/org/apache/geronimo/transaction/manager/TransactionManagerImpl.java#L203 >>> ) >>> >> maybe be a little too strict. The JTA Spec pdf doesn't offer exact >>> hints of >>> >> which statuses ( >>> >> https://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/javax/transaction/Status.html) >>> should >>> >> be have getResource _not_ throw an ISE unfortunately. I was thinking >>> of >>> >> changing Geronimo's implementation to check for anything >>> >> but STATUS_UNKNOWN, and STATUS_NO_TRANSACTION. >>> >> >>> >> The other way is to cast Transaction to the Geronimo implementation >>> and use >>> >> Geronimo specific APIs to get call getResource(). Do you guys have any >>> >> preference which route I should take to fix? >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 9:15 AM Jonathan S. Fisher < >>> [email protected]> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> https://github.com/exabrial/tomee-jms2-bug/tree/connection-pool-leak >>> >>> >>> >>> Here's a project that reproduces the bug. This project intentionally >>> >>> exceeds the transaction timeout (of 1s). Each invocation, the >>> connection is >>> >>> not returned to the pool and eventually you run out, causing your >>> >>> application to freeze. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 2:37 PM Jonathan S. Fisher < >>> [email protected]> >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hello Apache friends :) I have a question about the JTA and JMS/RA >>> specs: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> If you borrow something from a RA, like a JMS Connection, and >>> you're in >>> >>>> XA Transaction, is it necessary to call connection.close()? It >>> would seem >>> >>>> JTA should be smart enough to know the connection is enrolled for 2 >>> phase >>> >>>> commit and should be smart enough to close it, but I'm not sure if >>> that's >>> >>>> part of the spec. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> In TomEE 7.0.6 we're noticing that if you borrow a JMS Connection >>> with >>> >>>> connectionFactory.createConnection(), and your code fails to call >>> close() >>> >>>> before the transaction completion, the connection leaks. (And >>> >>>> unfortunately, calling close() after the transaction completes >>> doesn't >>> >>>> mitigate the problem). It took awhile for us to track this down. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> This becomes a huge problem if you're calling external services in >>> your >>> >>>> transaction. Let's say you have a reasonable transaction timeout of >>> 30s >>> >>>> set. You call three services, and they end up taking 15s a piece. >>> Even if >>> >>>> you're doing the right thing and you have connection.close() in a >>> finally >>> >>>> block, because your transaction isn't active when you call close, >>> it leaks >>> >>>> and it just gets "stuck" as an active connection, which eventually >>> you hit >>> >>>> the pool limit and your app freezes. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On a separate note, we noticed if you open a connection outside of >>> the >>> >>>> scope of a transaction, then start a transaction, then create a >>> session >>> >>>> with session_transacted option, the session does not participate in >>> the JTA >>> >>>> (which seems out of spec). One most open the connection inside the >>> >>>> transaction, AND open the session in the transaction, and close the >>> >>>> connection in the transaction for everything to work. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I'll get a reproducing project created, but I was curious if anyone >>> knew >>> >>>> offhand what the spec says. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> cheers, and thanks, >>> >>>> -[the other] Jonathan >>> >>>> >>> >>>> -- >>> >>>> Jonathan | [email protected] >>> >>>> Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it >>> as >>> >>>> half full. >>> >>>> Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it >>> needs to >>> >>>> be. >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Jonathan | [email protected] >>> >>> Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it >>> as >>> >>> half full. >>> >>> Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it >>> needs to >>> >>> be. >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> Jonathan | [email protected] >>> >> Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it >>> as half >>> >> full. >>> >> Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it >>> needs to >>> >> be. >>> > >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Jonathan | [email protected] >> Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as >> half full. >> Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs to >> be. >> > > > -- > Jonathan | [email protected] > Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as > half full. > Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs to > be. > -- Jonathan | [email protected] Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as half full. Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
