Mailing-List: contact dev-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:15:32 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Shanth Arockia (Commented) (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Message-ID: 
 <555338464.8219.1319454932095.JavaMail.tomcat@hel.zones.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <601698821.9869.1319015530567.JavaMail.tomcat@hel.zones.apache.org>
Subject: [jira] [Commented] (AMQ-3549) PooledConnectionFactory issue
 together with Spring "best efforts" transaction strategy.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-3549?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13133980#comment-13133980 ] 

Shanth Arockia commented on AMQ-3549:
-------------------------------------

I have unit tests but very much coupled with our code base. Will isolate the test and will provide you soon.
                
> PooledConnectionFactory issue together with Spring "best efforts" transaction strategy.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: AMQ-3549
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-3549
>             Project: ActiveMQ
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Broker
>    Affects Versions: 5.1.0
>            Reporter: Shanth Arockia
>
> PooledConnectionFactory issue together with Spring "best efforts" transaction strategy. Spring 2.0 already supports synchronized local JMS transactions in that style.
> For example if we use a Spring JMSTemplate with the spring synchronized local JMS transactions. We get into a problem where the session and hence connections are getting closed.
> I have narrowed down and found that the implementation of org.apache.activemq.pool.ConnectionPool.expiredCheck() is not correct in such a usage.
>  I have also looked at the latest version of ActiveMQ as well and the implementation has some bug fixes but it would still not solve the
> scenario if its used together with the Spring synchronized local JMS transactions.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira