no problem:
http://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-670
On 10/4/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Btw, could you please raise a JIRA to add jms flow in the default config ?
On 10/4/06, Jamie McCrindle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> thanks guillaume,
>
> will switch to jms for remote synchronous calls.
>
> cheers,
> j.
>
> On 10/4/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 10/4/06, Jamie McCrindle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > that said, in-out mep's are effectively a request/response pattern
> > > even if they're done asynchronously. so if you have a client that's
> > > turning a method call into an in-out mep to a remote endpoint and you
> > > want it to be transactional (or as transactional as possible) as in
> > > this pseudo code:
> > >
> > > Response doSomethingImportant(Request) {
> > > begin transaction
> > > async send in-out mep to remote SM endpoint;
> > > end transaction?
> > > wait for response;
> > > return response;
> > > }
> > >
> > > doesn't that imply you need to corellate the results (just on
> > > exchange.getExchangeId())?
> >
> > I doubt this would be a good thing to do.
> > The reason is that your method is no more transactional.
> > If the message has been sent in a transaction, it will be
> > delivered (or re-routed if you use a dead letter queue).
> > But in your case, another exchange will be sent.
> > If you want synchronous remote exchange, just don't use
> > transactions. If you need transactions, you can use
> > sync (on seda) or async (on jca), but if you use async,
> > you need to be fully asynchronous:
> >
> > void doSomehtingImportant(Request) {
> > begin tx
> > send request
> > commit tx
> > }
> >
> > void doSomethingImportantResponse(Response) {
> > handleResponse
> > }
> >
> >
> > >
> > > cheers,
> > > j.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > i think for the moment i'm going to require jms flow. would it be
> > > > > possible to add jmsflow as one of the flows in the default servicemix
> > > > > delivery so that synchronous remote calls are supported?
> > > >
> > > > Sure.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > cheers,
> > > > > j.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/4/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > I have just spotted that the first test you wrote should not work.
> > > > > > SendSync can not be used on top of the JCA flow, as there is
> > > > > > no way to do synchronous request / response calls with JMS.
> > > > > > See http://servicemix.goopen.org/site/transactions.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I need to fix the JCA flow to reject synchronous calls.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/4/06, Jamie McCrindle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > hiya,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > JCAFlow still seems to be misbehaving for me. I get the following
> > > > > > > kinds of behaviour using a component deployed into a default SM
> > > > > > > container and an integration test:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > some success at first
> > > > > > > count not find route for exchange
> > > > > > > message passed to component but reply not received
> > > > > > > endpoint found but message not passed to component
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > it's difficult to debug in the container but this keeps popping
up:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > DEBUG [Thread-5] ServerSessionImpl:1.run(167) | Endpoint failed to
> > > > > > > process message.
> > > > > > > java.lang.RuntimeException: Endpoint after delivery notification
failure
> > > > > > > at
org.apache.activemq.ra.ServerSessionImpl.afterDelivery(ServerSessionImpl.java:216)
> > > > > > > at
org.apache.activemq.ActiveMQSession.run(ActiveMQSession.java:751)
> > > > > > > at
org.apache.activemq.ra.ServerSessionImpl.run(ServerSessionImpl.java:163)
> > > > > > > at
org.apache.geronimo.connector.work.WorkerContext.run(WorkerContext.java:291)
> > > > > > > at
EDU.oswego.cs.dl.util.concurrent.PooledExecutor$Worker.run(Unknown Source)
> > > > > > > at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:595)
> > > > > > > Caused by: java.lang.IllegalStateException: Cannot commit if the
> > > > > > > transaction is not bound to the current thread
> > > > > > > at
org.apache.geronimo.transaction.context.GeronimoTransactionDelegate.commit(GeronimoTransactionDelegate.java:49)
> > > > > > > at
org.jencks.XAEndpoint.afterDelivery(XAEndpoint.java:103)
> > > > > > > at
org.apache.activemq.ra.MessageEndpointProxy$MessageEndpointAlive.afterDelivery(MessageEndpointProxy.java:125)
> > > > > > > at
org.apache.activemq.ra.MessageEndpointProxy.afterDelivery(MessageEndpointProxy.java:64)
> > > > > > > at
org.apache.activemq.ra.ServerSessionImpl.afterDelivery(ServerSessionImpl.java:214)
> > > > > > > ... 5 more
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > and i can replicate it in a test (pretty much the same test as
for the
> > > > > > > last issue, just sending 2 messages instead of 1). neither the
> > > > > > > component or the defaultservicemixclient is doing anything
explicitly
> > > > > > > with transactions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm running with ServiceMix 3.0
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > should I raise it in JIRA?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > cheers,
> > > > > > > j.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Guillaume Nodet
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Guillaume Nodet
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Guillaume Nodet
> >
>
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
