activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Strachan" <james.strac...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: JDBC Persistence
Date Sun, 26 Mar 2006 14:49:14 GMT
On 3/25/06, Jack Humphrey <jackh@google.com> wrote:
> On 3/24/06, James Strachan <james.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/24/06, Jack Humphrey <jackh@google.com> wrote:
> > > If I'm running on ActiveMQ 3.2.2 then master/slave is not an option, correct?
> >
> > Yes
> >
> > > I'm using 3.2.2 and the reliable: transport. Is the "randomize=false"
> > > argument available to make sure that I usually hit my master broker?
> > > How do I achieve the "locking out" that you refer to?
>
> Any tips?
>
> > > Also, in some testing I did with 3.2.2, it seemed that if journaling
> > > was disabled, and the database became unavailable (simulating mysql
> > > crash), that incoming messages were just lost. Does that sound like
> > > what you'd expect? I can debug further if that surprises you.
> >
> > We should be failing the send() call in those cases
>
> So, it is actually NOT failing send on the client side. Below is the
> relevant portion of the broker log, with exceptions. Looking through
> the code, I'm not clear on how the exception would make it back to the
> client. I see that it sends the exception in the Receipt -- do I need
> to do something to enable that. I can't find anywhere in the transport
> code, though, that actually reads the exception from the receipt.

If an operation (which is marked as requiring a response) fails with
an exception, we send back an ExceptionResponse to the client so that
it can throw an exception on the client side. Get your IDE to find
uses of ExceptionResponse and you should find the code paths that do
this.

> Should I file a bug on this? Thanks for your help.

Please do; any help on reproducing the error will make it easier for
us to fix it

--

James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/

Mime
View raw message