[
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-494?page=comments#action_36624 ]
Michael Studman commented on SM-494:
------------------------------------
So here's what was going on when it wasn't working for me:
JBIContainer.start {
Registry.start() {
A.start() { activate endpoint }
B.start() { sendSync to A; activate endpoint }
}
Broker.start() {
JMSFlow.start() { }
}
}
So, A is started and has activated its endpoing before B calls sendSync. The
sendSync fails only once it times out because there's no queue consumer for A's
queue.
If I change it to this it works:
JBIContainer.start {
Broker.start() {
JMSFlow.start()
}
Registry.start() {
A.start() { active endpoint }
B.start() { sendSync to A; activate endpoint ) }
}
}
This is because the JMSFlow listens for A's activation events and sets up a
queue and a consumer for messages to/from it.
> Problems with JMSFlow and sendSync in start() callbacks.
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SM-494
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-494
> Project: ServiceMix
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: servicemix-core
> Affects Versions: 3.0-M1
> Reporter: Michael Studman
> Priority: Critical
>
> I have two simple JBI components A & B; B sends (synchronously) a message to
> A in its start() method.
> When using ST or SEDA flow there are no problems - the flow completes.
> When I use JMS flow, however, B blocks when sending synchronously. I can see
> that A is started before B is started - it just seems A never gets the
> message.
> Reading the code it seems JMSFlow will route a requests even before it is
> started by creating a queue and placing a message on it. Because it hasn't
> been started, however, it won't have a queue listener in place to respond for
> that queue and so a sync message will just timeout without response.
> By simply switching the order of flow.start() and registry.start() in
> Broker.start() I was able to get the desired behaviour for my situation but I
> think this may actually introduce other bugs (e.g. JMS flow accepting remote
> messages when some or all components have not yet been started?).
> The behaviour I was expecting was that sending sync to a component already
> started should not block and sending sync to one not already started should
> fail. I think the flows and the registry need to work together a bit better.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
