Re: JTA JMS Spec question, connection leakage

Thanks for the explanation; I think your change should be good for everyone, not just amq. Iirc it used to be common (very bad) practice to get a connection handle and cache it in a non Singleton session bean and expect the connection infrastructure to associate it to whatever managed

Re: JTA JMS Spec question, connection leakage

Ahhh... The CDI spec for JMSContext says it's either scoped to either the current RequestScope, or in our case TransactionScope. I'll take an educated guess and bet TransactionScoped beans are destroyed using a [Transaction] Synchronization's afterCompletion() call. When the TransactionScope is

Re: JTA JMS Spec question, connection leakage

Well, beforeCompletion() is called as a result of commit() being called on the transaction, presumably by an EJB “interceptor”, and handleClosed() is called as a result of the “user level” connection being closed. I’m used to the latter being called by user code... perhaps with all the CDI and

Re: JTA JMS Spec question, connection leakage

Honestly I have no idea. And the interface specification is silent unfortunately: https://github.com/apache/geronimo-txmanager/blob/trunk/geronimo-connector/src/main/java/org/apache/geronimo/connector/outbound/connectiontracking/ConnectionTracker.java On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 3:32 PM David Jencks

Re: JTA JMS Spec question, connection leakage

You might have already explained this, but… why is beforeCompletion() called before handleReleased()? If that’s happening, I’d expect something is wrong. However, I haven’t looked at this code in years. thanks! David Jencks > On Sep 3, 2019, at 12:27 PM, Jonathan S. Fisher wrote: > > Two

Re: JTA JMS Spec question, connection leakage

Cool! And you're welcome! JMS, ActiveMQ, and XA transactions are pretty key for us; they form the building blocks for us to scale horizontally (Kafka like patterns). I just ran a 100,000 messages through the code in the PR without problems or memory leaks, so I'm not worried about that Arquillian

Re: JTA JMS Spec question, connection leakage

I knew you'd know some magic to help with this - thank you! Just looking at your PR now. Will give it a test shortly, but it looks good to me. Jon On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 3:08 PM Jonathan S. Fisher wrote: > There are actually a few log messages we regularly ignore all the time from > the

[GitHub] [tomee] asf-ci commented on issue #547: Tomee 2506 autoconnection tracker warning

asf-ci commented on issue #547: Tomee 2506 autoconnection tracker warning URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/547#issuecomment-527604923 Can one of the admins verify this patch? This is an automated message from the

[GitHub] [tomee] exabrial opened a new pull request #547: Tomee 2506 autoconnection tracker warning

exabrial opened a new pull request #547: Tomee 2506 autoconnection tracker warning URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/547 This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please

[GitHub] [tomee] asf-ci commented on issue #547: Tomee 2506 autoconnection tracker warning

asf-ci commented on issue #547: Tomee 2506 autoconnection tracker warning URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/547#issuecomment-527604924 Can one of the admins verify this patch? This is an automated message from the

[GitHub] [tomee] exabrial closed pull request #546: [WIP] Tomee 7.0.x Add jgallimore's JMS Context Tests

exabrial closed pull request #546: [WIP] Tomee 7.0.x Add jgallimore's JMS Context Tests URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/546 This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message,

[GitHub] [tomee] asf-ci commented on issue #547: Tomee 2506 autoconnection tracker warning

asf-ci commented on issue #547: Tomee 2506 autoconnection tracker warning URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/547#issuecomment-527604927 Can one of the admins verify this patch? This is an automated message from the

Re: JTA JMS Spec question, connection leakage

Two more updates: For the log message, it looks like beforeCompletion() Is being called before handleReleased(), leading to that warning. I ran a couple thousand messages through and took a heap dump and didn't get any leak suspects, so I think it's working correctly despite the warning. I'll add

Re: DISCUSS geronimo-security_1.0_spec content unclear

> On Sep 3, 2019, at 7:20 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > > If we still can't reuse jakata artifacts (their license is ok and there is no > impl reference inside so we should just use them, right?) it sounds natural This is my current thinking as well; maintain apis that are impls, use the EPL

Re: Java EE 8 versions of APIs

See this note on our activation thread. Long story short, our version 1.1 is legitimate and the exact version expected for Java EE 8 on Java 8. - https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/89f81b0584dffca7d979a4fdedc6fe7b4f3c547848b0159b1702857e@ On JavaMail, my recommendation would be to update

Re: TOMEE-2465: JDK 11 compatibility on Tomee 7.1.1 Needs an Update

Sorry, took some days off last week. If you have some fixes to backport and you are willing to create a PR I'm more than happy to review and merge for you. -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 4:54 PM Salomon Mayengue wrote:

Re: JTA JMS Spec question, connection leakage

If I bump the number of messages up to 10k or so I get a VM Crash... I cannot figure out how to get arquillian to give me a heap dump on exit though. On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 10:01 AM Jonathan S. Fisher wrote: > https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/546/files > > This passes consistently for me

Re: Java EE 8 versions of APIs

Trying to pull this message up in the list. If we want to release Apache TomEE 8.0.0 before CodeOne, we need JavaMail, Activation and some others. For the others, I think I managed to get them up for vote and ready. For Activation and JavaMail it's also an implementation so there is more work

Re: DISCUSS geronimo-security_1.0_spec content unclear

Ok I fixed the issue. Actually the spec module was clean but the bundle configuration was not so we were badly including JASPIC dependencies. I'll open up a VOTE for it -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 4:49 PM Romain

Re: JTA JMS Spec question, connection leakage

https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/546/files This passes consistently for me with no issues On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 9:08 AM Jonathan S. Fisher wrote: > There are actually a few log messages we regularly ignore all the time > from the transaction manager ::wince face:: I'm not sure if we

[GitHub] [tomee] asf-ci commented on issue #546: Tomee 7.0.x

asf-ci commented on issue #546: Tomee 7.0.x URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/546#issuecomment-527498093 Can one of the admins verify this patch? This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to

[GitHub] [tomee] asf-ci commented on issue #546: Tomee 7.0.x

asf-ci commented on issue #546: Tomee 7.0.x URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/546#issuecomment-527498088 Can one of the admins verify this patch? This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to

[GitHub] [tomee] asf-ci commented on issue #546: Tomee 7.0.x

asf-ci commented on issue #546: Tomee 7.0.x URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/546#issuecomment-527498090 Can one of the admins verify this patch? This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to

[GitHub] [tomee] exabrial opened a new pull request #546: Tomee 7.0.x

exabrial opened a new pull request #546: Tomee 7.0.x URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/546 This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL

Re: DISCUSS geronimo-security_1.0_spec content unclear

go ahead Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book

Re: DISCUSS geronimo-security_1.0_spec content unclear

We can raise the issue at Jakarta Meanwhile, can I remove the jaspic api classes because they really don't have anything to do in this spec jar -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 4:37 PM Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > MP

Re: DISCUSS geronimo-security_1.0_spec content unclear

MP license is ok (Apache2) but Jakarta is EPLs so keeps the ambiguity for us. That said it is good to reuse the same GAV for end users so we might ask jakarta to double license its api jars? Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog

Re: DISCUSS geronimo-security_1.0_spec content unclear

Yep that was the point. So I was asking if we should do the same yes or not. That seems to be your opinion Romain. Mark on the other end is having some doubts about the license. -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 4:31 PM

Re: DISCUSS geronimo-security_1.0_spec content unclear

Le mar. 3 sept. 2019 à 16:29, Jean-Louis Monteiro a écrit : > Thanks Romain. I'm fine with using Eclipse jars if from a legal point of > view, it works. > Otherwise, I'd like to split our spec jars. > > What about MicroProfile? > We already agreed to not redo the API and use microprofile jars.

Re: DISCUSS geronimo-security_1.0_spec content unclear

Thanks Romain. I'm fine with using Eclipse jars if from a legal point of view, it works. Otherwise, I'd like to split our spec jars. What about MicroProfile? It's the same license and we are using them in our MicroProfile implementations. -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro

Re: DISCUSS geronimo-security_1.0_spec content unclear

depends what their license is. EPL is (weak) copyleft. Thus I would like to avoid exposing it downstream as api. LieGrue, strub > Am 03.09.2019 um 16:20 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau : > > If we still can't reuse jakata artifacts (their license is ok and there is > no impl reference inside so we

Re: DISCUSS geronimo-security_1.0_spec content unclear

If we still can't reuse jakata artifacts (their license is ok and there is no impl reference inside so we should just use them, right?) it sounds natural Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog

DISCUSS geronimo-security_1.0_spec content unclear

Hi all, I was digging into some other specifications and see what would pass Jakarta TCK and realized that geronimo-security_1.0_spec content actually mixes 2 specifications. https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/security-api and https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jaspic I thought the initial intent

Re: JTA JMS Spec question, connection leakage

There are actually a few log messages we regularly ignore all the time from the transaction manager ::wince face:: I'm not sure if we should be concerned with that one. On your test, first, how is the broker xml declared? Often something that trips our newbies up to TomEE is having a persistent