On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:00 AM, artnaseef a...@artnaseef.com wrote:
Hey Claus - we can work on a 5.10.2; this bug exists in 5.10.1?
Yes 5.10.1 and 5.11.0 are affected.
Before starting down that route, though, is it possible to clarify the
impact of this bug? It sounds like a nuisance
A leak is a major concern.
With that said, I have questions. First, I thought the creation of addition
mbeans was failing, is that not right? If so, then what is actually
leaking? Are the mbeans being created but not removed?
Also, can you clarify under what conditions this occurs? For
Re-reading the entire thread, it appears there is an mbean leak.
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-5-11-0-rc3-tp4690743p4691397.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hey Claus - we can work on a 5.10.2; this bug exists in 5.10.1?
Before starting down that route, though, is it possible to clarify the
impact of this bug? It sounds like a nuisance from what I read - and could
hurt performance in some use-cases. Is that fair?
--
View this message in context:
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Paul Gale paul.n.g...@gmail.com wrote:
Given Claus' discovery does the severity of the issue warrant an immediate
dot release 5.11.1?
Its fixed now on master and 2.11 branch. And IMHO should be backported
to 5.10.x branch as well.
Patch releases would be a good
Ahh, good catch dkulp. Perhaps Paul needs to update his repo? I think I
need to do that too.
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-5-11-0-rc3-tp4690743p4691127.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Yup:
git tag -v activemq-5.11.0
git fetch --tags
get tag -v actrivemq-5.11.0
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-5-11-0-rc3-tp4690743p4691128.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Feb 5, 2015, at 3:15 PM, Paul Gale paul.n.g...@gmail.com wrote:
I am trying to build 5.11.0 based on the Git tag activemq-5.11.0.
However, this tag points to commit 48b0cf3 dating from 2014-12-29.
Shouldn't this tag point to commit 4ba1a16 dated 2015-01-30? If so, can one
of the
Hi
Okay I have narrowed it down to the git commit that caused this issue.
I posted that in the ticket.
It its due this ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5015
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Claus Ibsen claus.ib...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
I logged a ticket about this. Not sure
Actually if you're working with a forked repo (as I am) the command will be:
git fetch --tags upstream
Just an FYI
Thanks,
Paul
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 4:38 PM, artnaseef a...@artnaseef.com wrote:
Yup:
git tag -v activemq-5.11.0
git fetch --tags
get tag -v actrivemq-5.11.0
--
Given Claus' discovery does the severity of the issue warrant an immediate
dot release 5.11.1?
Thanks,
Paul
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Claus Ibsen claus.ib...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
Okay I have narrowed it down to the git commit that caused this issue.
I posted that in the ticket.
It
Good question - do we know the exact conditions required to cause the
problem? And all of the impacts when the problem occurs?
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-5-11-0-rc3-tp4690743p4691118.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing
Good find Claus. I'll try to find time tonight to look at that one as it's
an area I've been in before.
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-5-11-0-rc3-tp4690743p4691117.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at
On 02/05/2015 02:37 PM, artnaseef wrote:
Good find Claus. I'll try to find time tonight to look at that one as it's
an area I've been in before.
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-5-11-0-rc3-tp4690743p4691117.html
Sent from the
I am trying to build 5.11.0 based on the Git tag activemq-5.11.0.
However, this tag points to commit 48b0cf3 dating from 2014-12-29.
Shouldn't this tag point to commit 4ba1a16 dated 2015-01-30? If so, can one
of the committers please move said tag?
Thanks,
Paul
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 2:39 PM,
The tag should be moved to the actual release. I don't want to touch that
myself though as I do not know how to be sure which commit is truly the
correct one.
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-5-11-0-rc3-tp4690743p4691123.html
Sent
Cool - thanks Tim. Let me know if I can help.
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-ActiveMQ-5-11-0-rc3-tp4690743p4691124.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hi
I have done as Arthur suggested to dump the stacktrace, and also with
Gary's turn on|off the anonoymous producers.
I posted output from console as 2 gists
https://gist.github.com/davsclaus/b5fbb1287d383107e599
https://gist.github.com/davsclaus/0472ed0ab85ec5af9e79
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at
Hi
I logged a ticket about this. Not sure what the title it, but I
suspect its related to the activemq-pool.
I found an easier way of reproducing it using the camel-example-management.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5564
Just change the AMQ version in its pom.xml
properties
Hi
Just upgraded Camel master branch to 5.11.0 and you can reproduce the
issue there also
cd examples/camel-example-management
mvn clean install camel:run
Connect to the JVM using jconsole.
Notice the AcitveMQ tree under dynamic producers keeps adding new
mbeans, until your JVM runs out of
+1 (non binding)
Regards
JB
On 01/30/2015 03:00 PM, Gary Tully wrote:
Hi folks,
I've just cut a third release candidate for the long-awaited 5.11.0 release.
This release has more than 120 bug fixes and improvements.
-note-
this candidate includes the fix for the 'reliably' broken test case
Hey Claus - can you try dumping the stack trace when the MBeans are created
and removed to see the internal cause? I'm thinking along the following
lines:
LOG.warn(..., new Exception())
--
View this message in context:
Hi
Just wanted to say I have stumbled on a weird issue with the 5.11.0
release which I had trouble reproducing consistently.
The issue is subtle causing AMQ to continuously re-create dynamic
producer mbeans in the JMX tree. This is using a Camel spring app with
the AMQ connection pool.
Though
claus, that looks like producers are not being cached - I thought the
culprit may be https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-4968 but that
would have made 5.10. In any event, can you set
useAnonymousProducers=false on your activemq pooled connection
factory.
On 3 February 2015 at 16:55, Claus
+1
Looks good.
Dan
On Jan 30, 2015, at 9:00 AM, Gary Tully gary.tu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi folks,
I've just cut a third release candidate for the long-awaited 5.11.0 release.
This release has more than 120 bug fixes and improvements.
-note-
this candidate includes the fix for the
+1
Regards
--
Dejan Bosanac
--
Red Hat, Inc.
dbosa...@redhat.com
Twitter: @dejanb
Blog: http://sensatic.net
ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 8:55 PM, Timothy Bish tabish...@gmail.com wrote:
+1
On 01/30/2015 09:00 AM, Gary Tully
+1 (non-binding)
I gave a kick of the tyres to the broker binaries on linux, verified
the checksums+sigs, built the source release skipping the tests, did a
'quick' subset of the tests (Client, Broker, Stomp, MQTT, JDBC,
LevelDB, AMQP), and verified a dependent project using the build
output.
+1
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Gary Tully gary.tu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi folks,
I've just cut a third release candidate for the long-awaited 5.11.0 release.
This release has more than 120 bug fixes and improvements.
-note-
this candidate includes the fix for the 'reliably' broken test
+1 (binding)
* Sigs ok
* Legal ok (almost)
- a bunch of Copyright notices pointing to 2014 or 2013 (need to cleanup)
* Builds from source ok (almost)
There is one consistent failure in activemq-karaf-itest, however test
does pass when ran individually. No product defect, but should be
+1
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015, 8:11 AM Hadrian Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 (binding)
* Sigs ok
* Legal ok (almost)
- a bunch of Copyright notices pointing to 2014 or 2013 (need to
cleanup)
* Builds from source ok (almost)
There is one consistent failure in activemq-karaf-itest,
+1
Gary Tully mailto:gary.tu...@gmail.com
30 January 2015 14:00
Hi folks,
I've just cut a third release candidate for the long-awaited 5.11.0
release.
This release has more than 120 bug fixes and improvements.
-note-
this candidate includes the fix for the 'reliably' broken test case
from
+1
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015, 10:34 PM Claus Ibsen claus.ib...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
+1
Tested against Camel in Action source code also.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Gary Tully gary.tu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi folks,
I've just cut a third release candidate for the long-awaited 5.11.0
+1 (non-binding)
Regards
Krzysztof
On 30.01.2015 15:00, Gary Tully wrote:
Hi folks,
I've just cut a third release candidate for the long-awaited 5.11.0 release.
This release has more than 120 bug fixes and improvements.
-note-
this candidate includes the fix for the 'reliably' broken
+1
On 01/30/2015 09:00 AM, Gary Tully wrote:
Hi folks,
I've just cut a third release candidate for the long-awaited 5.11.0 release.
This release has more than 120 bug fixes and improvements.
-note-
this candidate includes the fix for the 'reliably' broken test case from rc2
however there can
Hi folks,
I've just cut a third release candidate for the long-awaited 5.11.0 release.
This release has more than 120 bug fixes and improvements.
-note-
this candidate includes the fix for the 'reliably' broken test case from rc2
however there can be no expectation of a 'reliable' full test run
Hi
+1
Tested against Camel in Action source code also.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Gary Tully gary.tu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi folks,
I've just cut a third release candidate for the long-awaited 5.11.0 release.
This release has more than 120 bug fixes and improvements.
-note-
this
36 matches
Mail list logo
