You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@activemq.apache.org by "Timothy Bish (Commented) (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2011/10/19 16:44:10 UTC
[jira] [Commented] (AMQ-3549) PooledConnectionFactory issue
together with Spring "best efforts" transaction strategy.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-3549?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13130655#comment-13130655 ]
Timothy Bish commented on AMQ-3549:
-----------------------------------
Recommend supplying a JUnit test case that demonstrates the problem you are seeing.
> PooledConnectionFactory issue together with Spring "best efforts" transaction strategy.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: AMQ-3549
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-3549
> Project: ActiveMQ
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Broker
> Affects Versions: 5.1.0
> Reporter: Shanth Arockia
>
> PooledConnectionFactory issue together with Spring "best efforts" transaction strategy. Spring 2.0 already supports synchronized local JMS transactions in that style.
> For example if we use a Spring JMSTemplate with the spring synchronized local JMS transactions. We get into a problem where the session and hence connections are getting closed.
> I have narrowed down and found that the implementation of org.apache.activemq.pool.ConnectionPool.expiredCheck() is not correct in such a usage.
> I have also looked at the latest version of ActiveMQ as well and the implementation has some bug fixes but it would still not solve the
> scenario if its used together with the Spring synchronized local JMS transactions.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira