When is 4.0.2 gonna go final? Docs suggest its still being voted upon.
--jason
On Oct 13, 2006, at 3:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
Yeah.. there was a small bug in the 4.0.1 code that causes it to not
negotiate properly with future versions of the protocol.
This bug has been fixed in the 4.0.2 version. And 4.0.2 should be
able to
connect to 4.0.1 and 4.1 versions of the broker just fine.
If this is not the case, let me know!
On 10/13/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hey, just curious if there is a plan (or maybe it already exists) to
provide support for interoperability between AMQ versions? I ask,
because I recently started working on GBuild again, which uses AMQ...
I setup a 4.0.1 broker, but my clients were using the 4.1-incubator*
and 4.0.1 broker was puking out CNFE exceptions:
<snip>
Exception in thread "ActiveMQ Transport: tcp:///127.0.0.1:52264"
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Invalid version: 2, could not
load org.apache.activemq.openwire.v2.MarshallerFactory
at org.apache.activemq.openwire.OpenWireFormat.setVersion
(OpenWireFormat.java:329)
at
org.apache.activemq.openwire.OpenWireFormat.renegociatWireFormat
(OpenWireFormat.java:569)
at
org.apache.activemq.transport.WireFormatNegotiator.onCommand
(WireFormatNegotiator.java:100)
at org.apache.activemq.transport.InactivityMonitor.onCommand
(InactivityMonitor.java:122)
at org.apache.activemq.transport.TransportSupport.doConsume
(TransportSupport.java:87)
at org.apache.activemq.transport.tcp.TcpTransport.run
(TcpTransport.java:143)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:613)
Caused by: java.lang.ClassNotFoundException:
org.apache.activemq.openwire.v2.MarshallerFactory
at org.apache.activemq.util.ClassLoading.loadClass
(ClassLoading.java:104)
at org.apache.activemq.openwire.OpenWireFormat.setVersion
(OpenWireFormat.java:327)
... 6 more
</snip>
I think I am probably going to just embed a broker in each GBuild
node and use network connectors from the slaves back to the master
node for connectivity so that its easier to use the m2 deps from 4.1-
incubator* to keep things in sync (among other reasons).
* * *
But, just wondering if there was a plan for broader interop?
--jason
--
Regards,
Hiram
Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
