Hi,
I created an PR to this issue = https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/579
needs review.
thanks.
--
*Daniel Dias dos Santos*
Java Developer
SouJava & JCP Member
GitHub: https://github.com/Daniel-Dos
Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/danieldiasjava
Twitter: http://twitter.com/danieldiasjava
Em
Daniel-Dos opened a new pull request #579: TOMEE-2697-Translate to
portuguese-async-servlet
URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/579
Link to Jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-2697
This is an automated
asf-ci commented on issue #579: TOMEE-2697-Translate to portuguese-async-servlet
URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/579#issuecomment-536846913
Can one of the admins verify this patch?
This is an automated message from
asf-ci commented on issue #579: TOMEE-2697-Translate to portuguese-async-servlet
URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/579#issuecomment-536846908
Can one of the admins verify this patch?
This is an automated message from
asf-ci commented on issue #579: TOMEE-2697-Translate to portuguese-async-servlet
URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/579#issuecomment-536846909
Can one of the admins verify this patch?
This is an automated message from
I created the JIRA [1] to translate the doc of async-servlet
Can some of the JIRA admins please assign the ticket to my username =
danieldiasjava
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-2697
--
*Daniel Dias dos Santos*
Java Developer
SouJava & JCP Member
GitHub:
Does something need to failover in this scenario, in order to reproduce it?
Jon
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 8:49 PM Jonathan S. Fisher
wrote:
> Here's the ref: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-6391 The
> scenario mentioned in the ticket is sending a message from an MDB, which
> call
Here's the ref: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-6391 The
scenario mentioned in the ticket is sending a message from an MDB, which
call connectionPool.getConnecion() twice. We actually haven't observed that
problem in practice (doesn't mean it's not happening though).
> I’d expect that
Could you explain this scenario further? Are there multiple activemq managed
connections to different brokers but associated with the same connection
handle? Or one managed connection associated with more than one “physical”
connection? I’d expect that transaction caching in the pooling would
It was 5.15.9 that was causing problems with the failover transport (Which
is a best practice to use). Essentially you memory leak when two or more
physical activemq connections get involved in an XA transaction
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 3:55 AM Jonathan Gallimore <
jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com>
asf-ci commented on issue #578: Example for using messageConsumer.receive()
URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/578#issuecomment-536552221
Can one of the admins verify this patch?
This is an automated message from the
asf-ci commented on issue #578: Example for using messageConsumer.receive()
URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/578#issuecomment-536552218
Can one of the admins verify this patch?
This is an automated message from the
jgallimore opened a new pull request #578: Example for using
messageConsumer.receive()
URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/578
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message,
asf-ci commented on issue #578: Example for using messageConsumer.receive()
URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/578#issuecomment-536552217
Can one of the admins verify this patch?
This is an automated message from the
14 matches
Mail list logo
