[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TRANSACTION-15?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Oliver Zeigermann updated TRANSACTION-15:
-----------------------------------------
Attachment: patch.txt
As far as I can see your patch only has a suggestion for the removal of unused
owners. As discussed in the thread you state this may fail in certain scenarios
where another thread adds a new log for that specific owner. That is possible
as in common tx you can have more than one thread per owner (not really a good
idea, though).
My recent commit, shown in the patch, takes over your idea and tries to take
the above argument into account.
Please check if that fixes the bug.
> Lightweight transaction leaks on exception from
> FileResourceManager.getResource
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TRANSACTION-15
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TRANSACTION-15
> Project: Commons Transaction
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 1.1, 1.2
> Environment: Current trunk of rev 542554
> Reporter: Antranig Basman
> Attachments: patch.txt, transaction-lightweight-fix.txt
>
>
> FileResourceManager getResource(String) method will leak in the case an
> exception occurs during execution, in the most obvious case where the
> resource does not exist. This is because the method does not do proper
> cleanup of the lightweight transaction (which it allocated itself).
> Lightweight transactions in general are pretty sketchy in commons-transaction
> which I think is a fact that should be advertised a bit more widely - I was a
> little disappointed to see that the 1.2 release went ahead last month without
> any more attention to the issues that I raised last May - the thread begins
> 22nd May 2006 at
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jakarta-commons-user/200605.mbox/[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
> (title: Memory leaks in GenericLockManager, FileResourceManager)
> The resolution to the leak I posted there was demonstrated not completely
> sound, but I think in the absence of any other approach it would be better
> than nothing - better that a heavyweight transaction immediately retried with
> the same ID will very rarely fail than that every lightweight transaction
> will leak :P
> In any case, this issue is more serious in that it is not just a leak, but
> will permanently lock a part of the resource tree for the lifetime of the
> ResourceManager. I have attached diffs for a patch and a test case for this
> issue below.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
