Hi,
There has been a regression and the following PR fixes it.
https://github.com/wso2/carbon-mediation/pull/965
Thanks,
Riyafa
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 11:18 AM, Keerthika Mahendralingam <
keerth...@wso2.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have cloned the latest fix for cache mediator and tried with
Hi All,
I have cloned the latest fix for cache mediator and tried with WSO2 EI
6.1.1-update19-SNAPSHOT. But I'm getting the correct response to the first
call and an empty response to the subsequent request. What could be the
reason?
I'm using the following proxy:
Hi Shafreen,
Thanks for the reply.
Yes if it is get deployed as a CAR file, the proxy won't get deployed and
the CAR file is getting marked as faulty.
Thanks,
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:45 AM, Shafreen Anfar wrote:
> Hi Malaka,
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:31 AM, Malaka
Hi Malaka,
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:31 AM, Malaka Gangananda wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> When we deploy a JMSListener proxy without activating the broker, proxy
> service will be get marked as a faulty service.
> This happens while trying to start listening for the service in axis2
>
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 8:39 PM, Harsha Kumara wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 8:37 PM, Isuru Haththotuwa
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 8:19 PM, Malintha Amarasinghe > > wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Shall we move our
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 8:37 PM, Isuru Haththotuwa wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 8:19 PM, Malintha Amarasinghe
> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Shall we move our sequence execution logic [1] such a way that it is
>> followed by response setting logic in
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 8:19 PM, Malintha Amarasinghe
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Shall we move our sequence execution logic [1] such a way that it is
> followed by response setting logic in the code [2]? Currently, it is
> preceded by [2] so whatever we set in the sequence is
Hi All,
Shall we move our sequence execution logic [1] such a way that it is
followed by response setting logic in the code [2]? Currently, it is
preceded by [2] so whatever we set in the sequence is getting overridden by
the code [2]. That needs to happen in the other way round ideally. If we do
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 4:56 PM Nirmal Fernando wrote:
> Suho,
>
> Thanks for the reply. What I am thinking is why we need a receiver queue,
> if we made DAS1->DAS2 async?
>
How will this fix the issue?
>
>
> On Wednesday, January 31, 2018, Sriskandarajah Suhothayan
Suho,
Thanks for the reply. What I am thinking is why we need a receiver queue,
if we made DAS1->DAS2 async?
On Wednesday, January 31, 2018, Sriskandarajah Suhothayan
wrote:
> AFAIR the event queue is used for buffering the events when states are
> being synced, else there will
AFAIR the event queue is used for buffering the events when states are
being synced, else there will be back pressure on the clients.
I think the rationale for using the same thread with synchronous call and
performing operations in both DAS1 and DAS2 ( in the order DAS1 -> DAS2 ->
DAS2-Siddhi ->
InputEventDispatcher will send the event to the callback immediately while
QueueInputEventDispatcher will queue events first and there will be an
internal worker (QueueInputEventDispatcherWorker) which send the events to
the callback. The reason to accumulate events in a queue in HA is to be
used
12 matches
Mail list logo