Hello all,
I've been testing out the add binding functionality on the Qpid UI I've
been writing and came across some "exciting" broker behaviour :-)
In précis I was fairly randomly adding and deleting bindings, which
ultimately result in QMF create/delete calls with type of binding.
Eventually I noticed in my UI that I wasn't seeing new bindings being
added. I checked in another instance on another machine (one was from my
iPad, the other my laptop) and noticed I'd stopped getting QMF updates.
I restarted the REST Server that serives the GUI AJAX calls as this
contains the QMF Console instance and that didn't help so it looks like
it was more an issue with the broker, sure enough when I checked the
broker log I saw.
2013-01-01 19:46:26 error Detected two management objects with the same
identifier:
0-1541-1--3452(org.apache.qpid.broker:binding:org.apache.qpid.broker:exchange:amq.match,org.apache.qpid.broker:queue:test,f3)
2013-01-02 12:44:07 error Detected two management objects with the same
identifier:
0-1541-1--3557(org.apache.qpid.broker:binding:org.apache.qpid.broker:exchange:amq.match,org.apache.qpid.broker:queue:test,f2)
2013-01-02 12:46:09 error Detected two management objects with the same
identifier:
0-1541-1--3559(org.apache.qpid.broker:binding:org.apache.qpid.broker:exchange:amq.match,org.apache.qpid.broker:queue:test,f1)
2013-01-02 13:51:15 error Detected two management objects with the same
identifier:
0-1541-1--3655(org.apache.qpid.broker:binding:org.apache.qpid.broker:exchange:amq.match,org.apache.qpid.broker:queue:test,f1)
Restarting the broker fixed things, but this looks like some defensive
logic is missing on the broker QMF create call (I've been testing
against qpid 0.12).
If I try adding queues or exchanges with a name that already exists I
get an exception sent back from QMF along the lines of "object already
exists: amq.match" so there's definitely some defensive logic, so this
appears only to be a problem with create binding.
Unfortunately I only came across this as I was fairly randomly adding
and removing bindings so I can't systematically reproduce this behaviour
yet.
I did add a binding between my test queue and amq.match with a binding
key of f1 and x-match all, when I tried again with x-match any QMF
accepted this without an exception but I got
2013-01-02 14:18:41 error Detected two management objects with the same
identifier:
0-1542-1--45(org.apache.qpid.broker:binding:org.apache.qpid.broker:exchange:amq.match,org.apache.qpid.broker:queue:test,f1)
From the broker, but this time I didn't get QMF hanging on me as I'd
had before so it's definitely a bit weird.
For create binding the QMF identifier (name) is of the form
<exchangeName>/<queueName>[/<bindingKey>] so as I was able to add
amq.match/test/f1 twice - once with properties {x-match: all} the other
with {x-match-any} it looks like the test for duplicate names that's in
place for create queue and create exchange isn't present for create binding.
Another slightly odd thing that I noticed in all this is that after
adding and removing a bunch of bindings between amq.match and the test
queue it looks like the bindingCount property of amq.match is being
incorrectly maintained, it's reporting a value of 6 when I've ended up
with none. This looks like a discrepancy between the value reported in
the exchange object's bindingCount property and the actual number of
binding Management Objects that have associations with the exchange in
question.
I expect I'm probably pushing the bounds of QMF with this stuff, though
if I do:
qpid-config bind amq.match test f1 all k1=v1
qpid-config bind amq.match test f1 any k1=v1
I don't get any errors from qpid-config, but the broker says
2013-01-02 14:49:39 error Detected two management objects with the same
identifier:
0-1543-1--138(org.apache.qpid.broker:binding:org.apache.qpid.broker:exchange:amq.match,org.apache.qpid.broker:queue:test,f1)
Again though I've not yet been able to reproduce the case where it
really gets its knickers in a twist and becomes dead to other QMF
requests. I'll update this post if and when I manage to break it
systematically, but in the mean time it definitely looks like there's at
least some weirdness going on with adding bindings.
Regards,
Frase
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
