activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gary Tully (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (AMQ-2659) JMSException incorrectly thrown when using XAConnection/XASession outside a transaction
Date Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:53:26 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-2659?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=59135#action_59135
] 

Gary Tully commented on AMQ-2659:
---------------------------------

yea, in the run() case it is. The issue is for other regular users of jms who swap in an XA
connection factory for a regular connection factory and use an XASession as a regular session
without a transaction, currently they will get an exception but with the proposed changes
they will not and they are into undefined behavior.
The point being that this change has implications beyond the RA use case. A variant of the
org.apache.activemq.JMSConsumerTest with an XA connection factory will demonstrate the problems
that the current exception is trying to avoid. From a normal JMS user perspective, Session
and XASession are not the same.

Maybe the way out of this is again through configuration, making the check for an active XA
transaction optional, so it can be disabled for power users.


> JMSException incorrectly thrown when using XAConnection/XASession outside a transaction
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: AMQ-2659
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-2659
>             Project: ActiveMQ
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 5.3.0
>            Reporter: Eugene Rodos
>
> Currently, if one attempts to use an XAConnection (implemented by ActiveMQXAConnection)
and consequently an XASession (implemented by ActiveMQXASession) outside a transaction, a
JMSException is thrown.  However, nowhere in the JMS Spec does it say that if an XAConnection/XASession
is used, it _*must*_ be enlisted in a transaction.  It is perfectly legal to _*not*_ start
a transaction but still use the XA objects.
> I propose that the following 2 methods in ActiveMQXASession be changed as follows to
resolve this bug:
> {noformat}
>     public boolean getTransacted() throws JMSException {
>         return getTransactionContext().isInXATransaction();
>     }
>     /**
>      * This is called before transacted work is done by the session.
>      * XA transactions are controlled outside of the session so
>      * nothing has to be done here.  The only reason for this method
>      * to be here is to override the parent.
>      */
>     protected void doStartTransaction() {
>     }
> {noformat}
> \\
> The current version of these methods is as follows (for reference):
> {noformat}
>     public boolean getTransacted() throws JMSException {
>         return true;
>     }
>     /**
>      * This is called before transacted work is done by
>      * the session.  XA Work can only be done when this
>      * XA resource is associated with an Xid.
>      *
>      * @throws JMSException not associated with an Xid
>      */
>     protected void doStartTransaction() throws JMSException {
>         if (!getTransactionContext().isInXATransaction()) {
>             throw new JMSException("Session's XAResource has not been enlisted in a distributed
transaction.");
>         }
>     }
> {noformat}

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


Mime
View raw message