geronimo-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Fredrik Jonson <>
Subject Re: Strange ClassCastException: ActiveMQResourceAdapter cannot be cast to ResourceAdapter (was: upgrade activemq 5.2 in G 2.1.4)
Date Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:35:16 GMT
David Jencks wrote:
>  My guess would be that
>  - you are using the amq 5.2 rar as supplied by amq, which contains
>  waaaay too much stuff including the j2ca spec jar.

No, not anymore. I ran into some issues around that in my first attempt.
Instead I package and depend on a custom and adopted version of

>  - the classloader for the rar does not have the jee-specs plugin as a
>  parent (or, rather, ancestor).
>  So the rar is loading the javax.resource classes in its own  classloader
>  and openejb is trying to load them in the jee-specs  classloader.

Yes, that sounds more likely. Neither my custom version of the activemq-broker
or the geronimo-activemq-ra plugin project pom have any geronimo module as
parent. Is that the correct way to share ancestor? Or perhaps it doesn't have
anything to do with dependencies in the pom, but rather is a matter of how
the plan.xml is configured?

What configuration for the car-maven-plugin decides which classloader a plugin
will use? Does it have anything with the category tag?

>  Can I ask why you aren't using 2.2-SNAPSHOT and/or porting our amq 5.x
>  integration back to 2.1.x? AMQ 5.2 did have some tck issues in
>  geronimo which is why we are using 5.3-SNAPSHOT and hoping for a
>  imminent 5.3 release.

Yes, I'm also hoping that both the AMQ 5.3 and G 2.2 release are imminent.
The gotcha is that our product release is even more imminent.

I considered backporting the 2.2 plugins but was concerned the project would
depend to much on 2.2-specific functionality in dependencies. Also it seemed
less invasive to just cut out those few modules that depended on ActiveMQ,
and replace just the broker and as little as possible otherwise. Hindsight
maybe that wasn't the best assumption. ;)

Another aspect is that we've had good experience with the stability of 5.2
used as a standalone broker for our use cases. I don't know to what extent
5.3 has been tested, so that would seem like a bit of a uncertain choice.

Fredrik Jonson

View raw message