Thanks a lot! Great support! Regards Jochen
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: "Kevan Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Gesendet: 04.06.08 17:38:55 > An: [email protected] > Betreff: Re: Maybe a ActiveMQ Bug? > > On Jun 4, 2008, at 9:22 AM, Jochen Zink wrote: > > > Are you sure, that geronimo 2.1.1 contains the fixed Version of > > ActiveMQ? The BuckTrackingEntry apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-1215 > > says, the bug is fixed in Version 5.1. But Geronimo 2.1.1 contains > > Version 4.1.2? > > Hi Jochen, > Heh. Yes, I noticed that, also. That's a Jira oversight, I think. > Perhaps the bug was fixed in 5.1 and then merged back into the 4.1.x > code stream. Originally, there wasn't going to be another 4.1.x > release after 4.1.1. FYI, there were a number of transaction-related > problems that were discovered between Geronimo and ActiveMQ (and fixed > in 2.1.1). They were the reason that we got a 4.1.2 release of AMQ. > So, there are some additional reasons for moving to G 2.1.1. > > FYI, here's the relevant code in 4.1.2 -- > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/activemq/tags/activemq-4.1.2/activemq-ra/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/ra/ServerSessionPoolImpl.java > > When compared to the same code in 4.1.1, you'll see additional guards > -- > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/activemq/tags/activemq-4.1.1/activemq-ra/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/ra/ServerSessionPoolImpl.java > > --kevan > > _____________________________________________________________________ Der WEB.DE SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! http://smartsurfer.web.de/?mc=100071&distributionid=000000000066
