Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5842D200C79 for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 16:59:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 56E44160BBE; Fri, 19 May 2017 14:59:04 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 7B107160BD5 for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 16:59:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 41772 invoked by uid 500); 19 May 2017 14:58:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact api-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: api@directory.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list api@directory.apache.org Received: (qmail 41248 invoked by uid 99); 19 May 2017 14:58:56 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 May 2017 14:58:56 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id B74751A7A09 for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 14:58:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.174 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.174 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.972, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u1g6_Z8Q2NAO for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 14:58:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zmcc-5-mx.zmailcloud.com (zmcc-5-mx.zmailcloud.com [52.201.171.122]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTPS id AD72A60CF7 for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 14:58:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zmcc-5-mta-1.zmailcloud.com (127.37.197.104.bc.googleusercontent.com [104.197.37.127]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by zmcc-5-mx.zmailcloud.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BEC44058A for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 09:59:33 -0500 (CDT) Received: from zmcc-5-mta-1.zmailcloud.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmcc-5-mta-1.zmailcloud.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10BB2C06FC for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 09:58:46 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmcc-5-mta-1.zmailcloud.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 038F8C06D2 for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 09:58:46 -0500 (CDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zmcc-5-mta-1.zmailcloud.com Received: from zmcc-5-mta-1.zmailcloud.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmcc-5-mta-1.zmailcloud.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id kHw2oSPepAAl for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 09:58:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: from MacBook-Pro.local (unknown [83.202.2.198]) by zmcc-5-mta-1.zmailcloud.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B2423C067E for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 09:58:45 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: LDAP API - Too much ldap connections with LdapConnectionPool To: "api@directory.apache.org" References: <18387aea6dcc4984a6b3c379b5ddbbb0@SU8000006107.ad.ing.net> <2452136dd7ae4b69a996a0206dc99edb@SU8000006107.ad.ing.net> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Emmanuel_L=c3=a9charny?= Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 16:58:44 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2452136dd7ae4b69a996a0206dc99edb@SU8000006107.ad.ing.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable archived-at: Fri, 19 May 2017 14:59:04 -0000 Le 19/05/2017 =C3=A0 16:29, Berg, R. van den (Robin) a =C3=A9crit : > Hi, > > Nevermind, I found the issue.=20 > I'll respond so you don't waste your time on this, and perhaps others f= ind use to my comment. > The documentation is also a bit ambiguous. > > The problem was that I specifically did an 'unbind'. I thought that wou= ld be safe.. before doing a 'bind' with another user on the same connecti= on. > However, this is something you should specifically NOT do. > The unbind operation sets the 'connected' flag on false: > [1864]LDAPNetworkConnection: connected.set( false ); > Therefore, the connection closes, and will be probably 4 min in TIME_WA= IT.=20 > A new one will be made by the next 'bind' operation. > > The docs tells us this: > (http://directory.apache.org/api/user-guide/2.2-binding-unbinding.html)= =20 > "Once the user has finished interacting with the server, they can unbin= d, destroying the session held on the server. This operation does not clo= se the connection, because, again bind !=3D connection!" > However, this is not entirely true because a bit further down in the sa= me documentation-page the docs tell: > " This is a trivial operation : you just send an UnbindRequest to the s= erver, which will invalidate your session. > It's important to know that when you issue an Unbind, the connection is= dropped" Ah ! Clarly, this is a bug, as unbind is not supposed to close the connection... Can you fill a JIRA so that this wrong beghaviour could be fixed ? Thanks ! --=20 Emmanuel Lecharny Symas.com directory.apache.org