[jboss-user] [JBoss Cache Users] - Re: InstanceAlreadyExistsException During hot deployment

2009-09-29 Thread pavnesh
Thanks Mircea.Markus for pointing me in right direction. I am able to fix the problem. I upgraded my cache jars to 'Malagueta' version of JBC 3.2.0GA. Also there was one old jar file of JBC which was creating the conflict. Then I also tested the cluster name other than jboss.cache:service=Tree

[jboss-user] [JBoss Cache Users] - Re: InstanceAlreadyExistsException During hot deployment

2009-09-29 Thread mircea.markus
Once you disabled the jmxStats, JBossCache does not try to bind anything to the mbean server. Even more, the mbean object name for JBC3.0.0 or greater should be jboss.cache:service=JBossCache, and not jboss.cache:service=TreeCache. Can you double check the JBC version you are using? View the o

[jboss-user] [JBoss Cache Users] - Re: InstanceAlreadyExistsException During hot deployment

2009-09-28 Thread pavnesh
Thanks Mircea.Markus. Some more information: Websphere appends cellName, nodeName and server name (node1) to whever ClusterName I specify in the treecache.xml. During hot deployment, jboss cache jars try to find if there is any MBean with name TreeCache-Cluster. It does not find any and tries t

[jboss-user] [JBoss Cache Users] - Re: InstanceAlreadyExistsException During hot deployment

2009-09-28 Thread pavnesh
Disabling jmxStatistics does not help. I still got the same issue. But after doing more research, I came to know that this is the problem (or feature not sure :) ) with Websphere AS. I am trying to find out the solutions. If in the mean time, someone comes across some solution/workaround, pleas

[jboss-user] [JBoss Cache Users] - Re: InstanceAlreadyExistsException During hot deployment

2009-09-28 Thread mircea.markus
you can disable the jmx statistics in JBossCache, but that would rather be a workaround. You should check why the MBean with the given name doesn't get unregistered. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4257252#4257252 Reply to the post : ht