Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4398DD3F.3050004@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 17:26:23 -0800
From: Kathey Marsden <kmarsdenderby@sbcglobal.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Windows/20040803)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Subject: Re: Is it possible that DERBY-491 and DERBY-614 are related?
References: <4398CC0C.4010102@amberpoint.com>
In-Reply-To: <4398CC0C.4010102@amberpoint.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Bryan Pendleton wrote:

> I was looking through the open bugs and became interested
> in DERBY-491, because it seems on the surface like it
> might be related to DERBY-614.
>
> I tried reproducing DERBY-491, and I think I was successful,
> although the bug report for DERBY-491 isn't very detailed
> about the symptoms that I should expect to see. What I see is:
>
> -=- ERROR 1 REPRODUCED:
> org.apache.derby.client.am.DisconnectException: actual code point, -2
> does not match expected code point, 8709
>         at
> org.apache.derby.client.net.Reply.zThrowSyntaxError(Reply.java:1163)
>         at
> org.apache.derby.client.net.Reply.parseLengthAndMatchCodePoint(Reply.java:1063)
>
> ...
>
> Next, I tried running the test case for DERBY-491, using a
> server which contains my proposed patch for DERBY-614.
>
> Interestingly, the behavior changes. Instead of getting
> the client-side exception, I instead get a "hang".
>
> I notice that DERBY-491, DERBY-492 (which describes a "hang"),
> and DERBY-170 are all marked as inter-related.
>
> I guess what I'm wondering is: is it possible that DERBY-614
> is related to these problems as well, and, furthermore, what
> did I do in my proposed changes for DERBY-614 which is causing
> DERBY-491 to change from an exception into a hang?
>
> It seems like it ought to be a clue, but I'm not sure what it means.
> It would be bad if my DERBY-614 changes made the behavior of
> DERBY-491 worse, but I'm not sure that they did: it was broken
> before, and it's broken (differently) now.
>
> This is kind of a fishing expedition, but could somebody who is
> more familiar with DERBY-491 and DERBY-492 have a think about this
> and tell me why you think my DERBY-614 changes seemed to impact this
> area?


Hi Bryan,  This issues are related to DSS chaining which is something
separate than DERBY-614.
Army made a great  Wiki page on the subject.
http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/DssProtocolErrors
Your 614 patch is now only three  items away  on my list.  I will get
there and soon. Thanks for your patience.

Kathey