No. I haven't created it yet (to less time last weeks). You'll probably better decide where to open this issue.
Best regards Krzysztof On 11.06.2014 11:09, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > By the way, it could be related to the Aries Blueprint update (I have > to double check). > > Regards > JB > > On 06/11/2014 11:05 AM, Sobkowiak, Krzysztof wrote: >> Hi Jean-Baptiste >> >> There is one more issue for hot deployment (SM-2325). It is rather a >> Karaf theme (I could reproduce it on Karaf) but I think it could have >> an impact for hot deployment of Camel routes too. It looks like the >> route once installed by hot deployment was started while Karaf startup >> and next the deployer detected the blueprint file in deploy directory >> and tried to update/refresh the already deployed blueprint. But you will >> probably better know what can cause the problem (or if this is really a >> problem) >> >> Best regards >> Krzysztof >> >> On 11.06.2014 10:52, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> I reopen the Jira this morning to investigate and I plan to work on >>> the Karaf 2.3.6 Jira this afternoon and tomorrow. >>> It's a question of timing. I should have close the Jira for a Karaf >>> 2.3.6 release by the end of this week. So Karaf 2.3.6 could be out >>> next week. >>> >>> If we consider it's a bit late, we can release ServiceMix 5.1.0/5.0.2 >>> with Karaf 2.3.4 (and updated Camel/CXF/...) today and prepare >>> ServiceMix 5.1.1/5.0.3 in 2/3 weeks. >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>> On 06/11/2014 10:47 AM, Gert Vanthienen wrote: >>>> Hi Krzysztof, >>>> >>>> That's not good news, indeed! Can you perhaps take a thread dump next >>>> time you see this, it might help us figure out why it's going wrong or >>>> what the best way to fix it is. >>>> >>>> We are now almost 10 days after the first attempt to release 5.1.0. >>>> Even if we can fix this in Karaf today and start a release vote there, >>>> it would still be early next week at the very best before we can build >>>> another release candidate for ServiceMix. Would it worth considering >>>> to do a ServiceMix 5.1.0 and 5.0.2 release with Karaf 2.3.4 (so at >>>> least users would have the updated versions of Camel, Activiti, ... >>>> available) and then follow up with 5.1.1/5.0.3 once Karaf 2.3.6 is >>>> out? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Gert Vanthienen >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Krzysztof Sobkowiak >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> I have bad news. I have just tested the problem again using the new >>>>> 2.3.6-SNAPSHOT and the problems still exists (but after more, 3-4, >>>>> restarts). I have reverted the changes for KARAF-2760 and built >>>>> Karaf. >>>>> It solved the problem. It means, KARAF-2760 causes the problem. >>>>> But it >>>>> seems KARAF-2910 causes the problem does not exist after first >>>>> restart. >>>>> But after more restarts the problem exists again. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Krzysztof >>>>> >>>>> On 01.06.2014 19:16, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: >>>>>> I agree, but please, give a couple of days to update and integrate >>>>>> some fixes in 2.3.6-SNAPSHOT. I will tackle the update in ServiceMix >>>>>> myself if you don't mind. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> JB >>>>>> >>>>>> On 06/01/2014 07:05 PM, Krzysztof Sobkowiak wrote: >>>>>>> +1 for reverting to 5.0.0 (as 5.0.1 is not usable) and releasing >>>>>>> 5.0.2 >>>>>>> based om Karaf 2.3.6 >>>>>>> +1 to releasing 5.1.0 with Karaf 2.3.6 >>>>>>> Perhaps could we change now the code base to Karaf >>>>>>> 2.3.6-SNAPSHOT to >>>>>>> have more time for tests. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards >>>>>>> Krzysztof >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 31.05.2014 11:40, Gert Vanthienen wrote: >>>>>>>> L.S., >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Looking at the changes for that issue, that change would >>>>>>>> definitely >>>>>>>> avoid the issue I was seeing on my machine. I'll ping the Karaf >>>>>>>> dev@ >>>>>>>> list to see if we can get a new 2.3.6 release out soon enough >>>>>>>> for us >>>>>>>> to work with. If that would take too long, I think I would prefer >>>>>>>> doing a 5.1.0 with an older version of Karaf, but providing the >>>>>>>> 2.13.1 >>>>>>>> version of Camel to our users instead of waiting around - we can >>>>>>>> always do a 5.1.1 afterwards when Karaf 2.3.6 is out. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In the meanwhile, I'm wondering if we shouldn't revert to >>>>>>>> promoting >>>>>>>> 5.0.0 on our main website/downloads or at least add a "known >>>>>>>> issues" >>>>>>>> section to the release notes about the possible ActiveMQ issue? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gert >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Krzysztof Sobkowiak >>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> 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 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Krzysztof Sobkowiak >>>>> >>>>> JEE & OSS Architect | Technical Architect @ Capgemini >>>>> Capgemini <http://www.pl.capgemini.com/> | Software Solutions Center >>>>> <http://www.pl.capgemini-sdm.com/> | Wroclaw >>>>> e-mail: [email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> | >>>>> Twitter: @KSobkowiak >>>>> Calendar: goo.gl/yvsebC >>> >> > -- Krzysztof Sobkowiak JEE & OSS Architect | Technical Architect @ Capgemini Capgemini <http://www.pl.capgemini.com/> | Software Solutions Center <http://www.pl.capgemini-sdm.com/> | Wroclaw e-mail: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> | Twitter: @KSobkowiak Calendar: http://goo.gl/yvsebC
