You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomee.apache.org by Jonathan Gallimore <jo...@gmail.com> on 2019/09/23 19:32:44 UTC
7.1.x and 7.0.x releases
I'm just doing some cleanup on these branches. I'm thinking its
probably time we put out new releases as these branches have seen some
fixes.
Is there anything that we think is missing before I kick off some releases
and votes?
I'd like to get the quartz-openejb-shade update if possible - that needs
some more reviewers and votes.
Jon
Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases
Posted by Alex The Rocker <al...@gmail.com>.
Hello Jon,
As long latest CVE fixes are part of upcoming 7.0.x & 7.1.x, that's a
very good thing to have such refresh as soon as possible.
Kind regards,
Alexandre
Le lun. 23 sept. 2019 à 21:33, Jonathan Gallimore
<jo...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> I'm just doing some cleanup on these branches. I'm thinking its
> probably time we put out new releases as these branches have seen some
> fixes.
>
> Is there anything that we think is missing before I kick off some releases
> and votes?
>
> I'd like to get the quartz-openejb-shade update if possible - that needs
> some more reviewers and votes.
>
> Jon
Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases
Posted by "Jonathan S. Fisher" <ex...@gmail.com>.
No, normal operation causes the problem
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 4:11 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 <ex...@gmail.com>
> 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 connectionPool.getConnecion() twice. We actually haven't observed
> that
> > problem in practice (doesn't mean it's not happening though).
> >
> > > I’d expect that transaction caching in the pooling would result in all
> > connection handles being associated with one managed connection in one
> > transaction
> > I actually wasn't aware this existed (go figure). This could be why we're
> > not seeing the issue on the MDB/Send a Message scenario.
> >
> > The scenario where we can reliably reproduce the problem is to have a
> Bean
> > Managed Transaction start, send a bunch of messages, then commit the
> > transaction, all in the loop. While this isn't explicitly stated in the
> > original ticket, it has the same leak.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 1:13 PM David Jencks <da...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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 result in all connection handles being associated with one
> managed
> > > connection in one transaction.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > David Jencks
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > > On Sep 30, 2019, at 10:10 AM, Jonathan S. Fisher <exabrial@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I'm not against updating ActiveMQ on 7.0.x, but I suspect that might
> > > mean
> > > >> we lose compatibility with Java 7. I forget which version Jonathan
> > > (Fisher)
> > > >> is running, but I suspect that's not an issue for him.
> > > >>
> > > >> I'll take a look at the versions, and start a thread so the
> community
> > > can
> > > >> decide what to do.
> > > >>
> > > >> Jon
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 9:39 AM Zowalla, Richard <
> > > >> richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hi Jonathan,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> current 7.1.1-SNAPSHOT branch is on ActiveMQ 5.15.10
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This update was conducted due to several CVE's related to its
> > transient
> > > >>> jackson-databind dependency.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> But, if I am right, you are still on 7.0.x - which has not been
> > updated
> > > >>> yet :)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Best,
> > > >>> Richard
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Am Dienstag, den 24.09.2019, 10:57 -0500 schrieb Jonathan S.
> Fisher:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> So I've got a test case, but it will likely just be isolated to us.
> > We
> > > were
> > > >>>
> > > >>> upgrading the ActiveMQ RAR to 5.15.9 to enable strict host checking
> > on
> > > TLS
> > > >>>
> > > >>> certificates. If we keep the stock ActiveMQ rar/jar we don't see
> the
> > > >>>
> > > >>> problem.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> So I guess take note of that if someone ever asks for an upgrade,
> the
> > > >>>
> > > >>> failover protocol will collapse a 32m JVM after about 10k messages.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:20 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > >>>
> > > >>> jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I have opened this ticket and pushed a fix on both Java EE 7 and 8
> > API
> > > jar.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> New snapshot deployed.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I'm waiting for the full build on master to pass and then I'll
> close
> > > the
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ticket and fire up the 2 releases so you can move on with TomEE
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > >>>
> > > >>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > >>>
> > > >>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:03 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> > > >>>
> > > >>> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Oh wow, that would be amazing!
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:49 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <
> > > exabrial@gmail.com>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I'll get a reproducer project put together that demos the bug.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:32 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> > > >>>
> > > >>> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> If we can come up with some good tests for it, I don't see why not.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Jon
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:25 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <
> > > >>>
> > > >>> exabrial@gmail.com>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> We've been running 7.0.x latest in prod for a few weeks with no
> > > >>>
> > > >>> issues
> > > >>>
> > > >>> other than the ActiveMQ Failover protocol memory leak issue (which
> > > >>>
> > > >>> affects
> > > >>>
> > > >>> all versions of TomEE).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-6391 This is an issue
> > > >>>
> > > >>> now
> > > >>>
> > > >>> because
> > > >>>
> > > >>> our JMS Context / Connection Factories will actually be
> > > >>>
> > > >>> transactional
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Should/Could we patch the ActiveMQ jar?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:24 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > >>>
> > > >>> jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The Locator issue raised earlier today. Would be great to get the
> > > >>>
> > > >>> fix
> > > >>>
> > > >>> in
> > > >>>
> > > >>> before rolling.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > >>>
> > > >>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > >>>
> > > >>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 12:33 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> > > >>>
> > > >>> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I'm just doing some cleanup on these branches. I'm thinking its
> > > >>>
> > > >>> probably time we put out new releases as these branches have
> > > >>>
> > > >>> seen
> > > >>>
> > > >>> some
> > > >>>
> > > >>> fixes.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Is there anything that we think is missing before I kick off
> > > >>>
> > > >>> some
> > > >>>
> > > >>> releases
> > > >>>
> > > >>> and votes?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I'd like to get the quartz-openejb-shade update if possible -
> > > >>>
> > > >>> that
> > > >>>
> > > >>> needs
> > > >>>
> > > >>> some more reviewers and votes.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Jon
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it
> > > >>>
> > > >>> as
> > > >>>
> > > >>> half
> > > >>>
> > > >>> full.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it
> > > >>>
> > > >>> needs
> > > >>>
> > > >>> to
> > > >>>
> > > >>> be.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it
> > as
> > > >>>
> > > >>> half
> > > >>>
> > > >>> full.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it
> > needs
> > > >>>
> > > >>> to
> > > >>>
> > > >>> be.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Richard Zowalla, M.Sc.
> > > >>> Research Associate, PhD Student | Medical Informatics
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Hochschule Heilbronn – University of Applied Sciences
> > > >>> Max-Planck-Str. 39
> > > >>> D-74081 Heilbronn
> > > >>> phone: +49 7131 504 6791
> > > >>> mail: richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de
> > > >>> web: http://www.mi.hs-heilbronn.de/
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
> > > > Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it
> as
> > > half
> > > > full.
> > > > Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it
> needs
> > to
> > > > be.
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
> > Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as
> half
> > full.
> > Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs to
> > be.
> >
>
--
Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as half
full.
Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs to
be.
Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases
Posted by Jonathan Gallimore <jo...@gmail.com>.
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 <ex...@gmail.com>
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 connectionPool.getConnecion() twice. We actually haven't observed that
> problem in practice (doesn't mean it's not happening though).
>
> > I’d expect that transaction caching in the pooling would result in all
> connection handles being associated with one managed connection in one
> transaction
> I actually wasn't aware this existed (go figure). This could be why we're
> not seeing the issue on the MDB/Send a Message scenario.
>
> The scenario where we can reliably reproduce the problem is to have a Bean
> Managed Transaction start, send a bunch of messages, then commit the
> transaction, all in the loop. While this isn't explicitly stated in the
> original ticket, it has the same leak.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 1:13 PM David Jencks <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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 result in all connection handles being associated with one managed
> > connection in one transaction.
> >
> > Thanks
> > David Jencks
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On Sep 30, 2019, at 10:10 AM, Jonathan S. Fisher <ex...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I'm not against updating ActiveMQ on 7.0.x, but I suspect that might
> > mean
> > >> we lose compatibility with Java 7. I forget which version Jonathan
> > (Fisher)
> > >> is running, but I suspect that's not an issue for him.
> > >>
> > >> I'll take a look at the versions, and start a thread so the community
> > can
> > >> decide what to do.
> > >>
> > >> Jon
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 9:39 AM Zowalla, Richard <
> > >> richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi Jonathan,
> > >>>
> > >>> current 7.1.1-SNAPSHOT branch is on ActiveMQ 5.15.10
> > >>>
> > >>> This update was conducted due to several CVE's related to its
> transient
> > >>> jackson-databind dependency.
> > >>>
> > >>> But, if I am right, you are still on 7.0.x - which has not been
> updated
> > >>> yet :)
> > >>>
> > >>> Best,
> > >>> Richard
> > >>>
> > >>> Am Dienstag, den 24.09.2019, 10:57 -0500 schrieb Jonathan S. Fisher:
> > >>>
> > >>> So I've got a test case, but it will likely just be isolated to us.
> We
> > were
> > >>>
> > >>> upgrading the ActiveMQ RAR to 5.15.9 to enable strict host checking
> on
> > TLS
> > >>>
> > >>> certificates. If we keep the stock ActiveMQ rar/jar we don't see the
> > >>>
> > >>> problem.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> So I guess take note of that if someone ever asks for an upgrade, the
> > >>>
> > >>> failover protocol will collapse a 32m JVM after about 10k messages.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:20 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > >>>
> > >>> jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I have opened this ticket and pushed a fix on both Java EE 7 and 8
> API
> > jar.
> > >>>
> > >>> New snapshot deployed.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm waiting for the full build on master to pass and then I'll close
> > the
> > >>>
> > >>> ticket and fire up the 2 releases so you can move on with TomEE
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>>
> > >>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > >>>
> > >>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > >>>
> > >>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:03 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> > >>>
> > >>> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Oh wow, that would be amazing!
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:49 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <
> > exabrial@gmail.com>
> > >>>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I'll get a reproducer project put together that demos the bug.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:32 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> > >>>
> > >>> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> If we can come up with some good tests for it, I don't see why not.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Jon
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:25 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <
> > >>>
> > >>> exabrial@gmail.com>
> > >>>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> We've been running 7.0.x latest in prod for a few weeks with no
> > >>>
> > >>> issues
> > >>>
> > >>> other than the ActiveMQ Failover protocol memory leak issue (which
> > >>>
> > >>> affects
> > >>>
> > >>> all versions of TomEE).
> > >>>
> > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-6391 This is an issue
> > >>>
> > >>> now
> > >>>
> > >>> because
> > >>>
> > >>> our JMS Context / Connection Factories will actually be
> > >>>
> > >>> transactional
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Should/Could we patch the ActiveMQ jar?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:24 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > >>>
> > >>> jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> The Locator issue raised earlier today. Would be great to get the
> > >>>
> > >>> fix
> > >>>
> > >>> in
> > >>>
> > >>> before rolling.
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>>
> > >>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > >>>
> > >>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > >>>
> > >>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 12:33 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> > >>>
> > >>> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm just doing some cleanup on these branches. I'm thinking its
> > >>>
> > >>> probably time we put out new releases as these branches have
> > >>>
> > >>> seen
> > >>>
> > >>> some
> > >>>
> > >>> fixes.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Is there anything that we think is missing before I kick off
> > >>>
> > >>> some
> > >>>
> > >>> releases
> > >>>
> > >>> and votes?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I'd like to get the quartz-openejb-shade update if possible -
> > >>>
> > >>> that
> > >>>
> > >>> needs
> > >>>
> > >>> some more reviewers and votes.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Jon
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>>
> > >>> Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
> > >>>
> > >>> Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it
> > >>>
> > >>> as
> > >>>
> > >>> half
> > >>>
> > >>> full.
> > >>>
> > >>> Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it
> > >>>
> > >>> needs
> > >>>
> > >>> to
> > >>>
> > >>> be.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>>
> > >>> Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
> > >>>
> > >>> Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it
> as
> > >>>
> > >>> half
> > >>>
> > >>> full.
> > >>>
> > >>> Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it
> needs
> > >>>
> > >>> to
> > >>>
> > >>> be.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>>
> > >>> Richard Zowalla, M.Sc.
> > >>> Research Associate, PhD Student | Medical Informatics
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Hochschule Heilbronn – University of Applied Sciences
> > >>> Max-Planck-Str. 39
> > >>> D-74081 Heilbronn
> > >>> phone: +49 7131 504 6791
> > >>> mail: richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de
> > >>> web: http://www.mi.hs-heilbronn.de/
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
> > > Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as
> > half
> > > full.
> > > Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs
> to
> > > be.
> >
>
>
> --
> Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
> Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as half
> full.
> Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs to
> be.
>
Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases
Posted by "Jonathan S. Fisher" <ex...@gmail.com>.
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 transaction caching in the pooling would result in all
connection handles being associated with one managed connection in one
transaction
I actually wasn't aware this existed (go figure). This could be why we're
not seeing the issue on the MDB/Send a Message scenario.
The scenario where we can reliably reproduce the problem is to have a Bean
Managed Transaction start, send a bunch of messages, then commit the
transaction, all in the loop. While this isn't explicitly stated in the
original ticket, it has the same leak.
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 1:13 PM David Jencks <da...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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 result in all connection handles being associated with one managed
> connection in one transaction.
>
> Thanks
> David Jencks
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Sep 30, 2019, at 10:10 AM, Jonathan S. Fisher <ex...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not against updating ActiveMQ on 7.0.x, but I suspect that might
> mean
> >> we lose compatibility with Java 7. I forget which version Jonathan
> (Fisher)
> >> is running, but I suspect that's not an issue for him.
> >>
> >> I'll take a look at the versions, and start a thread so the community
> can
> >> decide what to do.
> >>
> >> Jon
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 9:39 AM Zowalla, Richard <
> >> richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Jonathan,
> >>>
> >>> current 7.1.1-SNAPSHOT branch is on ActiveMQ 5.15.10
> >>>
> >>> This update was conducted due to several CVE's related to its transient
> >>> jackson-databind dependency.
> >>>
> >>> But, if I am right, you are still on 7.0.x - which has not been updated
> >>> yet :)
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>> Richard
> >>>
> >>> Am Dienstag, den 24.09.2019, 10:57 -0500 schrieb Jonathan S. Fisher:
> >>>
> >>> So I've got a test case, but it will likely just be isolated to us. We
> were
> >>>
> >>> upgrading the ActiveMQ RAR to 5.15.9 to enable strict host checking on
> TLS
> >>>
> >>> certificates. If we keep the stock ActiveMQ rar/jar we don't see the
> >>>
> >>> problem.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> So I guess take note of that if someone ever asks for an upgrade, the
> >>>
> >>> failover protocol will collapse a 32m JVM after about 10k messages.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:20 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> >>>
> >>> jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I have opened this ticket and pushed a fix on both Java EE 7 and 8 API
> jar.
> >>>
> >>> New snapshot deployed.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I'm waiting for the full build on master to pass and then I'll close
> the
> >>>
> >>> ticket and fire up the 2 releases so you can move on with TomEE
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> >>>
> >>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> >>>
> >>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:03 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> >>>
> >>> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Oh wow, that would be amazing!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:49 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <
> exabrial@gmail.com>
> >>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I'll get a reproducer project put together that demos the bug.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:32 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> >>>
> >>> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> If we can come up with some good tests for it, I don't see why not.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Jon
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:25 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <
> >>>
> >>> exabrial@gmail.com>
> >>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> We've been running 7.0.x latest in prod for a few weeks with no
> >>>
> >>> issues
> >>>
> >>> other than the ActiveMQ Failover protocol memory leak issue (which
> >>>
> >>> affects
> >>>
> >>> all versions of TomEE).
> >>>
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-6391 This is an issue
> >>>
> >>> now
> >>>
> >>> because
> >>>
> >>> our JMS Context / Connection Factories will actually be
> >>>
> >>> transactional
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Should/Could we patch the ActiveMQ jar?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:24 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> >>>
> >>> jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The Locator issue raised earlier today. Would be great to get the
> >>>
> >>> fix
> >>>
> >>> in
> >>>
> >>> before rolling.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> >>>
> >>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> >>>
> >>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 12:33 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> >>>
> >>> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I'm just doing some cleanup on these branches. I'm thinking its
> >>>
> >>> probably time we put out new releases as these branches have
> >>>
> >>> seen
> >>>
> >>> some
> >>>
> >>> fixes.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Is there anything that we think is missing before I kick off
> >>>
> >>> some
> >>>
> >>> releases
> >>>
> >>> and votes?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to get the quartz-openejb-shade update if possible -
> >>>
> >>> that
> >>>
> >>> needs
> >>>
> >>> some more reviewers and votes.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Jon
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
> >>>
> >>> Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it
> >>>
> >>> as
> >>>
> >>> half
> >>>
> >>> full.
> >>>
> >>> Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it
> >>>
> >>> needs
> >>>
> >>> to
> >>>
> >>> be.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
> >>>
> >>> Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as
> >>>
> >>> half
> >>>
> >>> full.
> >>>
> >>> Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs
> >>>
> >>> to
> >>>
> >>> be.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Richard Zowalla, M.Sc.
> >>> Research Associate, PhD Student | Medical Informatics
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hochschule Heilbronn – University of Applied Sciences
> >>> Max-Planck-Str. 39
> >>> D-74081 Heilbronn
> >>> phone: +49 7131 504 6791
> >>> mail: richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de
> >>> web: http://www.mi.hs-heilbronn.de/
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
> > Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as
> half
> > full.
> > Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs to
> > be.
>
--
Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as half
full.
Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs to
be.
Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases
Posted by David Jencks <da...@gmail.com>.
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 result in all connection handles being associated with one managed connection in one transaction.
Thanks
David Jencks
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 30, 2019, at 10:10 AM, Jonathan S. Fisher <ex...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm not against updating ActiveMQ on 7.0.x, but I suspect that might mean
>> we lose compatibility with Java 7. I forget which version Jonathan (Fisher)
>> is running, but I suspect that's not an issue for him.
>>
>> I'll take a look at the versions, and start a thread so the community can
>> decide what to do.
>>
>> Jon
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 9:39 AM Zowalla, Richard <
>> richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jonathan,
>>>
>>> current 7.1.1-SNAPSHOT branch is on ActiveMQ 5.15.10
>>>
>>> This update was conducted due to several CVE's related to its transient
>>> jackson-databind dependency.
>>>
>>> But, if I am right, you are still on 7.0.x - which has not been updated
>>> yet :)
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Richard
>>>
>>> Am Dienstag, den 24.09.2019, 10:57 -0500 schrieb Jonathan S. Fisher:
>>>
>>> So I've got a test case, but it will likely just be isolated to us. We were
>>>
>>> upgrading the ActiveMQ RAR to 5.15.9 to enable strict host checking on TLS
>>>
>>> certificates. If we keep the stock ActiveMQ rar/jar we don't see the
>>>
>>> problem.
>>>
>>>
>>> So I guess take note of that if someone ever asks for an upgrade, the
>>>
>>> failover protocol will collapse a 32m JVM after about 10k messages.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:20 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <
>>>
>>> jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I have opened this ticket and pushed a fix on both Java EE 7 and 8 API jar.
>>>
>>> New snapshot deployed.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm waiting for the full build on master to pass and then I'll close the
>>>
>>> ticket and fire up the 2 releases so you can move on with TomEE
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
>>>
>>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
>>>
>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:03 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
>>>
>>> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh wow, that would be amazing!
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:49 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <ex...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I'll get a reproducer project put together that demos the bug.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:32 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
>>>
>>> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> If we can come up with some good tests for it, I don't see why not.
>>>
>>>
>>> Jon
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:25 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <
>>>
>>> exabrial@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> We've been running 7.0.x latest in prod for a few weeks with no
>>>
>>> issues
>>>
>>> other than the ActiveMQ Failover protocol memory leak issue (which
>>>
>>> affects
>>>
>>> all versions of TomEE).
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-6391 This is an issue
>>>
>>> now
>>>
>>> because
>>>
>>> our JMS Context / Connection Factories will actually be
>>>
>>> transactional
>>>
>>>
>>> Should/Could we patch the ActiveMQ jar?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:24 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <
>>>
>>> jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The Locator issue raised earlier today. Would be great to get the
>>>
>>> fix
>>>
>>> in
>>>
>>> before rolling.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
>>>
>>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
>>>
>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 12:33 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
>>>
>>> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm just doing some cleanup on these branches. I'm thinking its
>>>
>>> probably time we put out new releases as these branches have
>>>
>>> seen
>>>
>>> some
>>>
>>> fixes.
>>>
>>>
>>> Is there anything that we think is missing before I kick off
>>>
>>> some
>>>
>>> releases
>>>
>>> and votes?
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd like to get the quartz-openejb-shade update if possible -
>>>
>>> that
>>>
>>> needs
>>>
>>> some more reviewers and votes.
>>>
>>>
>>> Jon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
>>>
>>> Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it
>>>
>>> as
>>>
>>> half
>>>
>>> full.
>>>
>>> Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it
>>>
>>> needs
>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>> be.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
>>>
>>> Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as
>>>
>>> half
>>>
>>> full.
>>>
>>> Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs
>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>> be.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Richard Zowalla, M.Sc.
>>> Research Associate, PhD Student | Medical Informatics
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hochschule Heilbronn – University of Applied Sciences
>>> Max-Planck-Str. 39
>>> D-74081 Heilbronn
>>> phone: +49 7131 504 6791
>>> mail: richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de
>>> web: http://www.mi.hs-heilbronn.de/
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
> Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as half
> full.
> Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs to
> be.
Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases
Posted by Jonathan Gallimore <jo...@gmail.com>.
Reviving this thread. I have one further update that I'd like to get in,
which is to update commons-daemon to the latest version which resolves an
issue running the Windows service with a 32bit JVM on a 64bit server. If
there's no objections, I'll roll releases for 7.0.7, 7.1.2 and 8.0.1 as ass
three have some dependency updates.
If you have any objections, please shout.
Jon
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 6:10 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <ex...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm not against updating ActiveMQ on 7.0.x, but I suspect that might mean
> > we lose compatibility with Java 7. I forget which version Jonathan
> (Fisher)
> > is running, but I suspect that's not an issue for him.
> >
> > I'll take a look at the versions, and start a thread so the community can
> > decide what to do.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 9:39 AM Zowalla, Richard <
> > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Jonathan,
> >>
> >> current 7.1.1-SNAPSHOT branch is on ActiveMQ 5.15.10
> >>
> >> This update was conducted due to several CVE's related to its transient
> >> jackson-databind dependency.
> >>
> >> But, if I am right, you are still on 7.0.x - which has not been updated
> >> yet :)
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Richard
> >>
> >> Am Dienstag, den 24.09.2019, 10:57 -0500 schrieb Jonathan S. Fisher:
> >>
> >> So I've got a test case, but it will likely just be isolated to us. We
> were
> >>
> >> upgrading the ActiveMQ RAR to 5.15.9 to enable strict host checking on
> TLS
> >>
> >> certificates. If we keep the stock ActiveMQ rar/jar we don't see the
> >>
> >> problem.
> >>
> >>
> >> So I guess take note of that if someone ever asks for an upgrade, the
> >>
> >> failover protocol will collapse a 32m JVM after about 10k messages.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:20 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> >>
> >> jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I have opened this ticket and pushed a fix on both Java EE 7 and 8 API
> jar.
> >>
> >> New snapshot deployed.
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm waiting for the full build on master to pass and then I'll close the
> >>
> >> ticket and fire up the 2 releases so you can move on with TomEE
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> >>
> >> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> >>
> >> http://www.tomitribe.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:03 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> >>
> >> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Oh wow, that would be amazing!
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:49 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <exabrial@gmail.com
> >
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I'll get a reproducer project put together that demos the bug.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:32 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> >>
> >> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> If we can come up with some good tests for it, I don't see why not.
> >>
> >>
> >> Jon
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:25 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <
> >>
> >> exabrial@gmail.com>
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> We've been running 7.0.x latest in prod for a few weeks with no
> >>
> >> issues
> >>
> >> other than the ActiveMQ Failover protocol memory leak issue (which
> >>
> >> affects
> >>
> >> all versions of TomEE).
> >>
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-6391 This is an issue
> >>
> >> now
> >>
> >> because
> >>
> >> our JMS Context / Connection Factories will actually be
> >>
> >> transactional
> >>
> >>
> >> Should/Could we patch the ActiveMQ jar?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:24 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> >>
> >> jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> The Locator issue raised earlier today. Would be great to get the
> >>
> >> fix
> >>
> >> in
> >>
> >> before rolling.
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> >>
> >> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> >>
> >> http://www.tomitribe.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 12:33 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> >>
> >> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm just doing some cleanup on these branches. I'm thinking its
> >>
> >> probably time we put out new releases as these branches have
> >>
> >> seen
> >>
> >> some
> >>
> >> fixes.
> >>
> >>
> >> Is there anything that we think is missing before I kick off
> >>
> >> some
> >>
> >> releases
> >>
> >> and votes?
> >>
> >>
> >> I'd like to get the quartz-openejb-shade update if possible -
> >>
> >> that
> >>
> >> needs
> >>
> >> some more reviewers and votes.
> >>
> >>
> >> Jon
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
> >>
> >> Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it
> >>
> >> as
> >>
> >> half
> >>
> >> full.
> >>
> >> Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it
> >>
> >> needs
> >>
> >> to
> >>
> >> be.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
> >>
> >> Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as
> >>
> >> half
> >>
> >> full.
> >>
> >> Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs
> >>
> >> to
> >>
> >> be.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Richard Zowalla, M.Sc.
> >> Research Associate, PhD Student | Medical Informatics
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hochschule Heilbronn – University of Applied Sciences
> >> Max-Planck-Str. 39
> >> D-74081 Heilbronn
> >> phone: +49 7131 504 6791
> >> mail: richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de
> >> web: http://www.mi.hs-heilbronn.de/
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
> Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as half
> full.
> Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs to
> be.
>
Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases
Posted by "Jonathan S. Fisher" <ex...@gmail.com>.
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.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not against updating ActiveMQ on 7.0.x, but I suspect that might mean
> we lose compatibility with Java 7. I forget which version Jonathan (Fisher)
> is running, but I suspect that's not an issue for him.
>
> I'll take a look at the versions, and start a thread so the community can
> decide what to do.
>
> Jon
>
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 9:39 AM Zowalla, Richard <
> richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jonathan,
>>
>> current 7.1.1-SNAPSHOT branch is on ActiveMQ 5.15.10
>>
>> This update was conducted due to several CVE's related to its transient
>> jackson-databind dependency.
>>
>> But, if I am right, you are still on 7.0.x - which has not been updated
>> yet :)
>>
>> Best,
>> Richard
>>
>> Am Dienstag, den 24.09.2019, 10:57 -0500 schrieb Jonathan S. Fisher:
>>
>> So I've got a test case, but it will likely just be isolated to us. We were
>>
>> upgrading the ActiveMQ RAR to 5.15.9 to enable strict host checking on TLS
>>
>> certificates. If we keep the stock ActiveMQ rar/jar we don't see the
>>
>> problem.
>>
>>
>> So I guess take note of that if someone ever asks for an upgrade, the
>>
>> failover protocol will collapse a 32m JVM after about 10k messages.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:20 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <
>>
>> jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I have opened this ticket and pushed a fix on both Java EE 7 and 8 API jar.
>>
>> New snapshot deployed.
>>
>>
>> I'm waiting for the full build on master to pass and then I'll close the
>>
>> ticket and fire up the 2 releases so you can move on with TomEE
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
>>
>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
>>
>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:03 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
>>
>> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Oh wow, that would be amazing!
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:49 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <ex...@gmail.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'll get a reproducer project put together that demos the bug.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:32 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
>>
>> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> If we can come up with some good tests for it, I don't see why not.
>>
>>
>> Jon
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:25 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <
>>
>> exabrial@gmail.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> We've been running 7.0.x latest in prod for a few weeks with no
>>
>> issues
>>
>> other than the ActiveMQ Failover protocol memory leak issue (which
>>
>> affects
>>
>> all versions of TomEE).
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-6391 This is an issue
>>
>> now
>>
>> because
>>
>> our JMS Context / Connection Factories will actually be
>>
>> transactional
>>
>>
>> Should/Could we patch the ActiveMQ jar?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:24 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <
>>
>> jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> The Locator issue raised earlier today. Would be great to get the
>>
>> fix
>>
>> in
>>
>> before rolling.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
>>
>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
>>
>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 12:33 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
>>
>> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'm just doing some cleanup on these branches. I'm thinking its
>>
>> probably time we put out new releases as these branches have
>>
>> seen
>>
>> some
>>
>> fixes.
>>
>>
>> Is there anything that we think is missing before I kick off
>>
>> some
>>
>> releases
>>
>> and votes?
>>
>>
>> I'd like to get the quartz-openejb-shade update if possible -
>>
>> that
>>
>> needs
>>
>> some more reviewers and votes.
>>
>>
>> Jon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
>>
>> Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it
>>
>> as
>>
>> half
>>
>> full.
>>
>> Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it
>>
>> needs
>>
>> to
>>
>> be.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
>>
>> Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as
>>
>> half
>>
>> full.
>>
>> Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs
>>
>> to
>>
>> be.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Richard Zowalla, M.Sc.
>> Research Associate, PhD Student | Medical Informatics
>>
>>
>>
>> Hochschule Heilbronn – University of Applied Sciences
>> Max-Planck-Str. 39
>> D-74081 Heilbronn
>> phone: +49 7131 504 6791
>> mail: richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de
>> web: http://www.mi.hs-heilbronn.de/
>>
>
--
Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as half
full.
Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs to
be.
Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases
Posted by Jonathan Gallimore <jo...@gmail.com>.
I'm not against updating ActiveMQ on 7.0.x, but I suspect that might mean
we lose compatibility with Java 7. I forget which version Jonathan (Fisher)
is running, but I suspect that's not an issue for him.
I'll take a look at the versions, and start a thread so the community can
decide what to do.
Jon
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 9:39 AM Zowalla, Richard <
richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> wrote:
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> current 7.1.1-SNAPSHOT branch is on ActiveMQ 5.15.10
>
> This update was conducted due to several CVE's related to its transient
> jackson-databind dependency.
>
> But, if I am right, you are still on 7.0.x - which has not been updated
> yet :)
>
> Best,
> Richard
>
> Am Dienstag, den 24.09.2019, 10:57 -0500 schrieb Jonathan S. Fisher:
>
> So I've got a test case, but it will likely just be isolated to us. We were
>
> upgrading the ActiveMQ RAR to 5.15.9 to enable strict host checking on TLS
>
> certificates. If we keep the stock ActiveMQ rar/jar we don't see the
>
> problem.
>
>
> So I guess take note of that if someone ever asks for an upgrade, the
>
> failover protocol will collapse a 32m JVM after about 10k messages.
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:20 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <
>
> jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com> wrote:
>
>
> I have opened this ticket and pushed a fix on both Java EE 7 and 8 API jar.
>
> New snapshot deployed.
>
>
> I'm waiting for the full build on master to pass and then I'll close the
>
> ticket and fire up the 2 releases so you can move on with TomEE
>
>
> --
>
> Jean-Louis Monteiro
>
> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
>
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:03 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
>
> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Oh wow, that would be amazing!
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:49 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <ex...@gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
> I'll get a reproducer project put together that demos the bug.
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:32 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
>
> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> If we can come up with some good tests for it, I don't see why not.
>
>
> Jon
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:25 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <
>
> exabrial@gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
> We've been running 7.0.x latest in prod for a few weeks with no
>
> issues
>
> other than the ActiveMQ Failover protocol memory leak issue (which
>
> affects
>
> all versions of TomEE).
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-6391 This is an issue
>
> now
>
> because
>
> our JMS Context / Connection Factories will actually be
>
> transactional
>
>
> Should/Could we patch the ActiveMQ jar?
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:24 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <
>
> jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com> wrote:
>
>
> The Locator issue raised earlier today. Would be great to get the
>
> fix
>
> in
>
> before rolling.
>
> --
>
> Jean-Louis Monteiro
>
> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
>
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 12:33 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
>
> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I'm just doing some cleanup on these branches. I'm thinking its
>
> probably time we put out new releases as these branches have
>
> seen
>
> some
>
> fixes.
>
>
> Is there anything that we think is missing before I kick off
>
> some
>
> releases
>
> and votes?
>
>
> I'd like to get the quartz-openejb-shade update if possible -
>
> that
>
> needs
>
> some more reviewers and votes.
>
>
> Jon
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
>
> Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it
>
> as
>
> half
>
> full.
>
> Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it
>
> needs
>
> to
>
> be.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
>
> Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as
>
> half
>
> full.
>
> Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs
>
> to
>
> be.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Richard Zowalla, M.Sc.
> Research Associate, PhD Student | Medical Informatics
>
>
>
> Hochschule Heilbronn – University of Applied Sciences
> Max-Planck-Str. 39
> D-74081 Heilbronn
> phone: +49 7131 504 6791
> mail: richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de
> web: http://www.mi.hs-heilbronn.de/
>
Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases
Posted by "Zowalla, Richard" <ri...@hs-heilbronn.de>.
Hi Jonathan,
current 7.1.1-SNAPSHOT branch is on ActiveMQ 5.15.10
This update was conducted due to several CVE's related to its transient
jackson-databind dependency.
But, if I am right, you are still on 7.0.x - which has not been updated
yet :)
Best,Richard
Am Dienstag, den 24.09.2019, 10:57 -0500 schrieb Jonathan S. Fisher:
> So I've got a test case, but it will likely just be isolated to us.
> We wereupgrading the ActiveMQ RAR to 5.15.9 to enable strict host
> checking on TLScertificates. If we keep the stock ActiveMQ rar/jar we
> don't see theproblem.
> So I guess take note of that if someone ever asks for an upgrade,
> thefailover protocol will collapse a 32m JVM after about 10k
> messages.
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:20 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> I have opened this ticket and pushed a fix on both Java EE 7 and 8
> API jar.New snapshot deployed.
> I'm waiting for the full build on master to pass and then I'll close
> theticket and fire up the 2 releases so you can move on with TomEE
> --Jean-Louis Monteiro
> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteirohttp://www.tomitribe.com
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:03 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh wow, that would be amazing!
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:49 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <
> exabrial@gmail.com>wrote:
> I'll get a reproducer project put together that demos the bug.
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:32 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> If we can come up with some good tests for it, I don't see why not.
> Jon
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:25 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <
> exabrial@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> We've been running 7.0.x latest in prod for a few weeks with noissues
> other than the ActiveMQ Failover protocol memory leak issue
> (whichaffects
> all versions of TomEE).https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-6391
> This is an issuenow
> becauseour JMS Context / Connection Factories will actually
> betransactional
>
> Should/Could we patch the ActiveMQ jar?
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:24 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> The Locator issue raised earlier today. Would be great to get thefix
> in
> before rolling.--Jean-Louis Monteiro
> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteirohttp://www.tomitribe.com
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 12:33 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm just doing some cleanup on these branches. I'm thinking
> itsprobably time we put out new releases as these branches haveseen
> some
> fixes.
> Is there anything that we think is missing before I kick offsome
> releases
> and votes?
> I'd like to get the quartz-openejb-shade update if possible -that
> needs
> some more reviewers and votes.
> Jon
>
>
>
> --Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.comPessimists, see a jar as half empty.
> Optimists, in contrast, see itas
> half
> full.Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as
> itneeds
> to
> be.
>
>
>
> --Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.comPessimists, see a jar as half empty.
> Optimists, in contrast, see it ashalf
> full.Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it
> needsto
> be.
>
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Zowalla, M.Sc.Research Associate, PhD Student | Medical Informatics
Hochschule Heilbronn – University of Applied SciencesMax-Planck-Str. 39 D-74081 Heilbronn phone: +49 7131 504 6791mail: richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.deweb: http://www.mi.hs-heilbronn.de/
Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases
Posted by "Jonathan S. Fisher" <ex...@gmail.com>.
So I've got a test case, but it will likely just be isolated to us. We were
upgrading the ActiveMQ RAR to 5.15.9 to enable strict host checking on TLS
certificates. If we keep the stock ActiveMQ rar/jar we don't see the
problem.
So I guess take note of that if someone ever asks for an upgrade, the
failover protocol will collapse a 32m JVM after about 10k messages.
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:20 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <
jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> I have opened this ticket and pushed a fix on both Java EE 7 and 8 API jar.
> New snapshot deployed.
>
> I'm waiting for the full build on master to pass and then I'll close the
> ticket and fire up the 2 releases so you can move on with TomEE
>
> --
> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:03 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Oh wow, that would be amazing!
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:49 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <ex...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'll get a reproducer project put together that demos the bug.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:32 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> > > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > If we can come up with some good tests for it, I don't see why not.
> > > >
> > > > Jon
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:25 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <
> > exabrial@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > We've been running 7.0.x latest in prod for a few weeks with no
> > issues
> > > > > other than the ActiveMQ Failover protocol memory leak issue (which
> > > > affects
> > > > > all versions of TomEE).
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-6391 This is an issue
> now
> > > > > because
> > > > > our JMS Context / Connection Factories will actually be
> transactional
> > > > >
> > > > > Should/Could we patch the ActiveMQ jar?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:24 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > > > jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The Locator issue raised earlier today. Would be great to get the
> > fix
> > > > in
> > > > > > before rolling.
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 12:33 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> > > > > > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm just doing some cleanup on these branches. I'm thinking its
> > > > > > > probably time we put out new releases as these branches have
> seen
> > > > some
> > > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is there anything that we think is missing before I kick off
> some
> > > > > > releases
> > > > > > > and votes?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd like to get the quartz-openejb-shade update if possible -
> > that
> > > > > needs
> > > > > > > some more reviewers and votes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jon
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
> > > > > Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it
> > as
> > > > half
> > > > > full.
> > > > > Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it
> > needs
> > > to
> > > > > be.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
> > > Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as
> > half
> > > full.
> > > Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs
> to
> > > be.
> > >
> >
>
--
Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as half
full.
Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs to
be.
Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases
Posted by Jean-Louis Monteiro <jl...@tomitribe.com>.
I have opened this ticket and pushed a fix on both Java EE 7 and 8 API jar.
New snapshot deployed.
I'm waiting for the full build on master to pass and then I'll close the
ticket and fire up the 2 releases so you can move on with TomEE
--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:03 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh wow, that would be amazing!
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:49 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <ex...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'll get a reproducer project put together that demos the bug.
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:32 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > If we can come up with some good tests for it, I don't see why not.
> > >
> > > Jon
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:25 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <
> exabrial@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > We've been running 7.0.x latest in prod for a few weeks with no
> issues
> > > > other than the ActiveMQ Failover protocol memory leak issue (which
> > > affects
> > > > all versions of TomEE).
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-6391 This is an issue now
> > > > because
> > > > our JMS Context / Connection Factories will actually be transactional
> > > >
> > > > Should/Could we patch the ActiveMQ jar?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:24 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > > jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The Locator issue raised earlier today. Would be great to get the
> fix
> > > in
> > > > > before rolling.
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 12:33 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> > > > > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'm just doing some cleanup on these branches. I'm thinking its
> > > > > > probably time we put out new releases as these branches have seen
> > > some
> > > > > > fixes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is there anything that we think is missing before I kick off some
> > > > > releases
> > > > > > and votes?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd like to get the quartz-openejb-shade update if possible -
> that
> > > > needs
> > > > > > some more reviewers and votes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jon
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
> > > > Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it
> as
> > > half
> > > > full.
> > > > Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it
> needs
> > to
> > > > be.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
> > Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as
> half
> > full.
> > Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs to
> > be.
> >
>
Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases
Posted by Jonathan Gallimore <jo...@gmail.com>.
Oh wow, that would be amazing!
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:49 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <ex...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I'll get a reproducer project put together that demos the bug.
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:32 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If we can come up with some good tests for it, I don't see why not.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:25 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <ex...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > We've been running 7.0.x latest in prod for a few weeks with no issues
> > > other than the ActiveMQ Failover protocol memory leak issue (which
> > affects
> > > all versions of TomEE).
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-6391 This is an issue now
> > > because
> > > our JMS Context / Connection Factories will actually be transactional
> > >
> > > Should/Could we patch the ActiveMQ jar?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:24 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > > jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The Locator issue raised earlier today. Would be great to get the fix
> > in
> > > > before rolling.
> > > > --
> > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 12:33 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> > > > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm just doing some cleanup on these branches. I'm thinking its
> > > > > probably time we put out new releases as these branches have seen
> > some
> > > > > fixes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there anything that we think is missing before I kick off some
> > > > releases
> > > > > and votes?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to get the quartz-openejb-shade update if possible - that
> > > needs
> > > > > some more reviewers and votes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jon
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
> > > Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as
> > half
> > > full.
> > > Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs
> to
> > > be.
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
> Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as half
> full.
> Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs to
> be.
>
Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases
Posted by "Jonathan S. Fisher" <ex...@gmail.com>.
I'll get a reproducer project put together that demos the bug.
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:32 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> If we can come up with some good tests for it, I don't see why not.
>
> Jon
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:25 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <ex...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > We've been running 7.0.x latest in prod for a few weeks with no issues
> > other than the ActiveMQ Failover protocol memory leak issue (which
> affects
> > all versions of TomEE).
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-6391 This is an issue now
> > because
> > our JMS Context / Connection Factories will actually be transactional
> >
> > Should/Could we patch the ActiveMQ jar?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:24 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> > jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The Locator issue raised earlier today. Would be great to get the fix
> in
> > > before rolling.
> > > --
> > > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 12:33 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> > > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm just doing some cleanup on these branches. I'm thinking its
> > > > probably time we put out new releases as these branches have seen
> some
> > > > fixes.
> > > >
> > > > Is there anything that we think is missing before I kick off some
> > > releases
> > > > and votes?
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to get the quartz-openejb-shade update if possible - that
> > needs
> > > > some more reviewers and votes.
> > > >
> > > > Jon
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
> > Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as
> half
> > full.
> > Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs to
> > be.
> >
>
--
Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as half
full.
Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs to
be.
Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases
Posted by Jonathan Gallimore <jo...@gmail.com>.
If we can come up with some good tests for it, I don't see why not.
Jon
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:25 PM Jonathan S. Fisher <ex...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> We've been running 7.0.x latest in prod for a few weeks with no issues
> other than the ActiveMQ Failover protocol memory leak issue (which affects
> all versions of TomEE).
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-6391 This is an issue now
> because
> our JMS Context / Connection Factories will actually be transactional
>
> Should/Could we patch the ActiveMQ jar?
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:24 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com> wrote:
>
> > The Locator issue raised earlier today. Would be great to get the fix in
> > before rolling.
> > --
> > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > http://www.tomitribe.com
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 12:33 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> > jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm just doing some cleanup on these branches. I'm thinking its
> > > probably time we put out new releases as these branches have seen some
> > > fixes.
> > >
> > > Is there anything that we think is missing before I kick off some
> > releases
> > > and votes?
> > >
> > > I'd like to get the quartz-openejb-shade update if possible - that
> needs
> > > some more reviewers and votes.
> > >
> > > Jon
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
> Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as half
> full.
> Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs to
> be.
>
Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases
Posted by "Jonathan S. Fisher" <ex...@gmail.com>.
We've been running 7.0.x latest in prod for a few weeks with no issues
other than the ActiveMQ Failover protocol memory leak issue (which affects
all versions of TomEE).
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-6391 This is an issue now because
our JMS Context / Connection Factories will actually be transactional
Should/Could we patch the ActiveMQ jar?
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:24 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <
jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com> wrote:
> The Locator issue raised earlier today. Would be great to get the fix in
> before rolling.
> --
> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 12:33 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm just doing some cleanup on these branches. I'm thinking its
> > probably time we put out new releases as these branches have seen some
> > fixes.
> >
> > Is there anything that we think is missing before I kick off some
> releases
> > and votes?
> >
> > I'd like to get the quartz-openejb-shade update if possible - that needs
> > some more reviewers and votes.
> >
> > Jon
> >
>
--
Jonathan | exabrial@gmail.com
Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as half
full.
Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs to
be.
Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases
Posted by Jean-Louis Monteiro <jl...@tomitribe.com>.
The Locator issue raised earlier today. Would be great to get the fix in
before rolling.
--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 12:33 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm just doing some cleanup on these branches. I'm thinking its
> probably time we put out new releases as these branches have seen some
> fixes.
>
> Is there anything that we think is missing before I kick off some releases
> and votes?
>
> I'd like to get the quartz-openejb-shade update if possible - that needs
> some more reviewers and votes.
>
> Jon
>