Re: [VOTE] Release Apache.NMS.ActiveMQ 1.2.0 #3

[Jim Gomes]

Got your changes.  They matched mine.

- Jim

-Original Message-
From: Timothy Bish 
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:28:39 
To: 
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache.NMS.ActiveMQ 1.2.0 #3

On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 14:20 -0800, Jim Gomes wrote:
> I searched the code for other areas where Thread.ResetAbort() was called
> (three locations found), and I have made some changes on my local machine.
> I am reconfiguring my application to use these custom versions so I can test
> the changes.  I'll report back after I have been able to verify the fix.
> 
> I see that you reopened AMQNET-218.  I'll go add my comments there so we can
> track the issue.

I made a few small changes in the code, make sure you grab the latest.

> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Timothy Bish  wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 13:41 -0800, Jim Gomes wrote:
> > > -1
> > >
> > > The recent change made for AMQNET-218 seems to have introduced a problem.
> > > In general, I am uneasy about having this type of threading-related code
> > > change made right before a release.  It would be better to let this kind
> > of
> > > change "cook" for a while.
> > >
> > > Specifically, in CompositeTaskRunner.cs, line 160, the call to
> > > Thread.ResetAbort() in the exception handler is causing an exception,
> > > because this function should only be called in response to a
> > > ThreadAbortException.  It is causing a ThreadStateException because no
> > abort
> > > was requested.  This catch handler should be re-written so that the
> > > Thread.ResetAbort() call is made in a specific exception handler for
> > > ThreadAbortException, rather than in the general exception handler.
> > >
> >
> > Ok, then lets consider the vote canceled and until such time as someone
> > can come up with a solution that makes everyone happy we will put 1.2.0
> > on hold.
> >
> > Regards
> > Tim.
> >
> >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache.NMS.ActiveMQ 1.2.0 #3

[Timothy Bish]

On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 14:20 -0800, Jim Gomes wrote:
> I searched the code for other areas where Thread.ResetAbort() was called
> (three locations found), and I have made some changes on my local machine.
> I am reconfiguring my application to use these custom versions so I can test
> the changes.  I'll report back after I have been able to verify the fix.
> 
> I see that you reopened AMQNET-218.  I'll go add my comments there so we can
> track the issue.

I made a few small changes in the code, make sure you grab the latest.

> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Timothy Bish  wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 13:41 -0800, Jim Gomes wrote:
> > > -1
> > >
> > > The recent change made for AMQNET-218 seems to have introduced a problem.
> > > In general, I am uneasy about having this type of threading-related code
> > > change made right before a release.  It would be better to let this kind
> > of
> > > change "cook" for a while.
> > >
> > > Specifically, in CompositeTaskRunner.cs, line 160, the call to
> > > Thread.ResetAbort() in the exception handler is causing an exception,
> > > because this function should only be called in response to a
> > > ThreadAbortException.  It is causing a ThreadStateException because no
> > abort
> > > was requested.  This catch handler should be re-written so that the
> > > Thread.ResetAbort() call is made in a specific exception handler for
> > > ThreadAbortException, rather than in the general exception handler.
> > >
> >
> > Ok, then lets consider the vote canceled and until such time as someone
> > can come up with a solution that makes everyone happy we will put 1.2.0
> > on hold.
> >
> > Regards
> > Tim.
> >
> >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache.NMS.ActiveMQ 1.2.0 #3

[Jim Gomes]

I searched the code for other areas where Thread.ResetAbort() was called
(three locations found), and I have made some changes on my local machine.
I am reconfiguring my application to use these custom versions so I can test
the changes.  I'll report back after I have been able to verify the fix.

I see that you reopened AMQNET-218.  I'll go add my comments there so we can
track the issue.


On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Timothy Bish  wrote:

> On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 13:41 -0800, Jim Gomes wrote:
> > -1
> >
> > The recent change made for AMQNET-218 seems to have introduced a problem.
> > In general, I am uneasy about having this type of threading-related code
> > change made right before a release.  It would be better to let this kind
> of
> > change "cook" for a while.
> >
> > Specifically, in CompositeTaskRunner.cs, line 160, the call to
> > Thread.ResetAbort() in the exception handler is causing an exception,
> > because this function should only be called in response to a
> > ThreadAbortException.  It is causing a ThreadStateException because no
> abort
> > was requested.  This catch handler should be re-written so that the
> > Thread.ResetAbort() call is made in a specific exception handler for
> > ThreadAbortException, rather than in the general exception handler.
> >
>
> Ok, then lets consider the vote canceled and until such time as someone
> can come up with a solution that makes everyone happy we will put 1.2.0
> on hold.
>
> Regards
> Tim.
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache.NMS.ActiveMQ 1.2.0 #3

[Timothy Bish]

On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 13:41 -0800, Jim Gomes wrote:
> -1
> 
> The recent change made for AMQNET-218 seems to have introduced a problem.
> In general, I am uneasy about having this type of threading-related code
> change made right before a release.  It would be better to let this kind of
> change "cook" for a while.
> 
> Specifically, in CompositeTaskRunner.cs, line 160, the call to
> Thread.ResetAbort() in the exception handler is causing an exception,
> because this function should only be called in response to a
> ThreadAbortException.  It is causing a ThreadStateException because no abort
> was requested.  This catch handler should be re-written so that the
> Thread.ResetAbort() call is made in a specific exception handler for
> ThreadAbortException, rather than in the general exception handler.
> 

Ok, then lets consider the vote canceled and until such time as someone
can come up with a solution that makes everyone happy we will put 1.2.0
on hold.  

Regards
Tim.


> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 6:23 AM, Timothy Bish  wrote:
> 
> > The issue found during the last voting cycle have all been resolved
> > so its time to try another vote.
> >
> > Now that we've fixed the issue the Voting is open once again on the
> > Apache.NMS.ActiveMQ 1.2.0 release.
> >
> > This release is based on the Apache.NMS API v1.2.0 and runs on .NET
> > frameworks 2.0+ and Mono 2.0+
> >
> > Changes in this version include
> >
> > * Support for ConnectionMeteData in the Connection API.
> > * Supports the new Individual Acknowledge Mode.
> > * New IStreamMessage support
> > * New IRedeliveryPolicy interface and PrefecthPolicy support.
> > * Expanded IByteMessage interface to read/write primitive types.
> > * Message's adhere to the JMS Read only and Write only rules.
> > * Many new Unit Tests added to the Test Suite.
> > * Support for Message Body Compression.
> > * Connection Inactivity Monitor.
> > * Optional Asynchronous Reconnects in the Failover Transport.
> > * Optional Timeouts for Dispose and Close of Sessions.
> > * Many more bugfixes and improvements as well.
> >
> > The new binary and source bundles for the release candidate can be
> > found here:
> > 
> > >
> >
> > The Wiki Page for this release is here:
> > 
> >
> > Please cast your votes:
> >
> > [ ] +1 Release the source as Apache.NMS.ActiveMQ 1.2.0
> > [ ] -1 Veto the release (provide specific comments)
> >
> > Here's my +1
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tim
> >
> >
> >
> >

-- 
Tim Bish
http://fusesource.com
http://timbish.blogspot.com/

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache.NMS.ActiveMQ 1.2.0 #3

[Jim Gomes]

-1

The recent change made for AMQNET-218 seems to have introduced a problem.
In general, I am uneasy about having this type of threading-related code
change made right before a release.  It would be better to let this kind of
change "cook" for a while.

Specifically, in CompositeTaskRunner.cs, line 160, the call to
Thread.ResetAbort() in the exception handler is causing an exception,
because this function should only be called in response to a
ThreadAbortException.  It is causing a ThreadStateException because no abort
was requested.  This catch handler should be re-written so that the
Thread.ResetAbort() call is made in a specific exception handler for
ThreadAbortException, rather than in the general exception handler.

On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 6:23 AM, Timothy Bish  wrote:

> The issue found during the last voting cycle have all been resolved
> so its time to try another vote.
>
> Now that we've fixed the issue the Voting is open once again on the
> Apache.NMS.ActiveMQ 1.2.0 release.
>
> This release is based on the Apache.NMS API v1.2.0 and runs on .NET
> frameworks 2.0+ and Mono 2.0+
>
> Changes in this version include
>
> * Support for ConnectionMeteData in the Connection API.
> * Supports the new Individual Acknowledge Mode.
> * New IStreamMessage support
> * New IRedeliveryPolicy interface and PrefecthPolicy support.
> * Expanded IByteMessage interface to read/write primitive types.
> * Message's adhere to the JMS Read only and Write only rules.
> * Many new Unit Tests added to the Test Suite.
> * Support for Message Body Compression.
> * Connection Inactivity Monitor.
> * Optional Asynchronous Reconnects in the Failover Transport.
> * Optional Timeouts for Dispose and Close of Sessions.
> * Many more bugfixes and improvements as well.
>
> The new binary and source bundles for the release candidate can be
> found here:
> 
> >
>
> The Wiki Page for this release is here:
> 
>
> Please cast your votes:
>
> [ ] +1 Release the source as Apache.NMS.ActiveMQ 1.2.0
> [ ] -1 Veto the release (provide specific comments)
>
> Here's my +1
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
>
>
>