Hi

I don't know if it helps, but I have tested the same problem on Karaf
snapshots (4.0.0-SNAPSHOT, 3.0.2-SNAPSHOT, 2.3.6-SNAPSHOT) and the
problem seems to be fixed. Has fix for issue
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KARAF-2910 fixed the problem (if
it's really caused by issue mentioned by Gert)?

Of course, we are still on 2.3.5 and 3.0.1.

Best regards
Krzysztof 

On 30.05.2014 18:05, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> It's for me ;)
>
> Let me take a look on that and especially the default config in
> etc/org.apache.karaf.features.cfg: I introduced a config to control of
> the feature (sync or async), it could be related (or the start level
> support). However, the default behavior should be the same.
>
> Let me take a look on that.
>
> I keep you posted.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 05/30/2014 06:02 PM, Krzysztof Sobkowiak wrote:
>> I have tested this problem wit AMQ 5.9.0 and 5.9.1 on Karaf 2.3.4 and
>> 2.3.5. On 2.3.4 it works, on 2.3.5 start of the routes fails after Karaf
>> restart. It seems to be a problem with Karaf upgrade.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Krzysztof
>>
>> On 30.05.2014 16:51, Gert Vanthienen wrote:
>>> L.S.,
>>>
>>> I took a quick look at the issue with the ActiveMQ connection factory
>>> that is keeping the quickstart example in "Creating" - on my machine,
>>> I also have the same issue with Apache ServiceMix 5.0.1 (which is
>>> still using ActiveMQ 5.9.0).  Looking at the output from jstack, it
>>> looks like the changes for
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KARAF-2760 might have something
>>> to do with it - when the properties LoginModule is being initialized
>>> as part of the ActiveMQ connection being set up, it wants to register
>>> something in the OSGi Service Registry and seems unable to acquire the
>>> necessary locks to do that.
>>>
>>> For commons-lang: that seems to be caused by a change in the camel-cxf
>>> feature definition.  In earlier versions, that was installing the
>>> cxf-xjc-runtime feature which included the commons-lang bundle.  With
>>> the new versions, a smaller set of CXF features is being installed as
>>> part of the camel-cxf feature, causing the commons-lang to no longer
>>> be installed out-of-the-box.  So that seems to be an intended change
>>> in the Camel features.xml file.  Since none of the remaining boot
>>> features require commons-lang, I don't think there's a real need for
>>> it to be installed by default.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Gert Vanthienen
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Gregor Zurowski
>>> <gre...@zurowski.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi Everyone:
>>>>
>>>> I have found similar issues related to ActiveMQ as previously reported
>>>> by Krzysztof and Jean-Baptiste: Custom bundles using ActiveMQ did not
>>>> reflect the correct status after deployment, and the broker did not
>>>> get started with another test installation.
>>>>
>>>> I had further problems with a custom bundle originally developed for
>>>> 5.0.0 because the org.apache.commons.lang bundle is not available by
>>>> default any longer. Further looking into it, I realized that this
>>>> seems to be the case since 5.0.1. Is that an intended change or an
>>>> actual defect?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Gregor
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Gert Vanthienen
>>>> <gert.vanthie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> L.S.,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a vote to release Apache ServiceMix 5.1.0.
>>>>>
>>>>> The staging area is available at
>>>>>   
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheservicemix-1009/
>>>>>
>>>>> An overview of issues fixed in this release can be found in JIRA at
>>>>>    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SM/fixforversion/12326660
>>>>>
>>>>> The scm tag is available on
>>>>>   
>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/servicemix/?p=servicemix.git;a=commit;h=8504e67e8eaffca62aae15936daa85c5e82e53a5
>>>>>
>>>>> Please vote to approve this release:
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] +1 Approve the release
>>>>> [ ] -1 Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
>>>>>
>>>>> This vote will be open for 72 hours.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Gert Vanthienen
>>
>>

Reply via email to