I don't know yet. Hasn't timed out again yet. I hope it is not indeterminate.
I just tried to create a user, and it succeeded. And it has been 8 hours since this morning. When I created a user. Hmmm, I wonder what will happen if I restart the james server. Ok, that succeeded too. Hmm.. I don't know. I should have kept that log. Will let you know the next time it happens, -tim On Jun 20, 2012, at 5:08 AM, Eric Charles wrote: > Hi Tim, > > An indication of the time needed to get the timeout will be useful. > > We already have findbugs defines in the (project) pom, so if you invoke 'mvn > findbugs:check' you will get a findbugs.xml in the target folder. If you want > something more readable, you can invoke 'mvn site -Psite-reports' (look in > site/findbugs.html). > > Thx, Eric > > On 06/19/2012 06:48 PM, Timothy Prepscius wrote: >> K, I'll post a stack trace tomorrow. (need to wait for the connection to >> die) >> >> >> [ optional ] >> >> On a lesser note, do you guys do code coverage/static analysis of james? >> >> Do you have a favorite tool/plugin that works well with maven and james? >> (I'm not versed in the various maven java coverage/analysis tools) >> >> I'll spend some time looking tonight, but if there is an obvious choice.. >> etc etc etc.. >> >> [ /optional ] >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> -tim >> >> >> On Jun 19, 2012, at 10:23 AM, Eric Charles wrote: >> >>> Hi Tim, >>> >>> No idea on the overhead, the connect method instanciates a few objects >>> connecting to the remote server. >>> >>> If your workload is not too high, it should be all right, but don't do it >>> via direct database access (never ever!). >>> >>> It would be good that you post the exception stacktrace in a JIRA so we can >>> think to enhance the client with a JMX Connection pool (or something like >>> that) or configure the connection with longer timeouts. >>> >>> Thx, >>> Eric >>> >>> On 06/19/2012 02:58 PM, Timothy Prepscius wrote: >>>> I am wondering whether anyone knows the overhead associated with the >>>> JmxServerProbe? >>>> >>>> So, currently, I instantiate a JMX interface and keep it around >>>> indefinitely in order to create users. >>>> However, it eventually times out and fails to reconnect. >>>> Thereafter, user creation fails. >>>> >>>> >>>> So, if I use JMX, I will need to change the code to instantiate the JMX >>>> interface with each user creation. >>>> >>>> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> Is this wise? What sort of overhead am I inducing by creating this JMX >>>> interface? >>>> >>>> I'm wondering if I should instead just write directly to the >>>> james.JAMES_USER table. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> -tim >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscr...@james.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-h...@james.apache.org >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> eric | http://about.echarles.net | @echarles >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscr...@james.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-h...@james.apache.org >>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscr...@james.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-h...@james.apache.org >> > > -- > eric | http://about.echarles.net | @echarles > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscr...@james.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-h...@james.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscr...@james.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-h...@james.apache.org
