NEW If I force a brokenConnection.close() into the onException callback, (called when the "other" connection is broken), my process can now terminate gracefully and is not blocked waiting threads die.
However there is a JMSException thrown by this "close" on a brokenConnection. But it is not a big problem. I think it is not the way ActiveMQ should work. Eric-AWL Eric-AWL wrote: > > I think that I have some news. > > The problem is more complex than I wrote initially (I wanted to be clear). > > In fact, I have two ActiveMQ connections initialized in the same "main" > JVM. One with an embedded broker, the second with a distant broker > embedded in an "other" JVM. Some threads didn't die when I want to > shutdown my "main" JVM in this condition : > - I stop the "other" JVM gracefully. > - OnException is called on the "main JVM", but I don't close sessions nor > close this connection on the main JVM, since I think that this is done > automatically. > - I want to stop the "main" JVM by closing session on the embedded > connection, closing connection, and shutdown the embedded broker. > > It is in this configuration that some sessions are not closed and my > process doesn't want to stop gracefully. > > I think that threads that don't die are finally affected to the broken > connection. > I can see that "ActiveMQ Connection Worker" thread associated with my > broken connection is always active. > > What is the best way to deal with this problem ? > > Thank you > Eric-AWL > > > > > Gary Tully wrote: >> >> session.close should do it! >> >> 2009/6/19 Eric-AWL <eric.vinc...@atosorigin.com> >> >>> >>> Hi ! >>> >>> No, I don't use Web console at all. But I use JMX console. >>> >>> Do you know the conditions required for a thread session to terminate ? >>> Should session.close() be enough or have we to wait for some kind of >>> timeout >>> (Inactivity) before the thread die ? ... I extensively use network of >>> brokers too (in relatively complex configurations), and it is possible >>> that >>> some related consumers/producers continue to be active on other nodes. >>> >>> I am in a full AUTO_ACKNOWLEDGEMENT configuration. >>> >>> >>> If you explain me when a session thread is supposed to die, I will try >>> to >>> find where is located the error. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Gary Tully wrote: >>> > >>> > I wonder are you experiencing >>> > https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-2169 >>> > >>> > 2009/6/17 Eric-AWL <eric.vinc...@atosorigin.com> >>> > >>> >> >>> >> Hi >>> >> >>> >> in 5.3-snapshot and 5.2 release, I think I correctly close >>> >> consumers/producers/session and the threads like this one : >>> >> >>> >> ActiveMQ Session: ID:td0sib01s-32880-1245239727292-2:0:25 >>> >> >>> >> doesn't seem to die. >>> >> >>> >> Is there something to do ? >>> >> >>> >> Eric-AWL >>> >> -- >>> >> View this message in context: >>> >> >>> http://www.nabble.com/Do-you-know-when-ActiveMQ-Session-threads-dies---tp24071802p24071802.html >>> >> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > http://blog.garytully.com >>> > >>> > Open Source Integration >>> > http://fusesource.com >>> > >>> > >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://www.nabble.com/Do-you-know-when-ActiveMQ-Session-threads-die---tp24071802p24109839.html >>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> http://blog.garytully.com >> >> Open Source Integration >> http://fusesource.com >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Do-you-know-when-ActiveMQ-Session-threads-die---tp24071802p24324078.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
