about last years commits for JMS

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

Jacques,

could you please help me to understand all the changes you did around JMS? I see some issues (e.g. the value of ServiceDispatcher.enableJMS is ignored) and reviewing the history of commits I have seen that you have committed changes, then fixed them (partially reverting?) but all in all I have a lot of confusion and you can probably help in summarizing what was done.

For example the commit:

=================================
Author: jleroux
Date: Fri Jun  3 19:05:07 2011
New Revision: 1131144

URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1131144&view=rev
Log:
Closes "JmsTopicListener started twice when distributed-cache-clear is active" reported by Martin Kreidenweis at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4296
Simply avoid to start a JMS Listener thread from Job Manager when DCC is on. Then set it back to previous value.
=================================

seems to have caused issues that you tried to fix with:

=================================
Author: jleroux
Date: Fri Sep 23 19:22:40 2011
New Revision: 1174964

URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1174964&view=rev
Log:
A patch from Dimitri Unruh "With no DistributionCacheClear JMS is not working anymore." https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4296
Tested in both case (with and w/out dcc), works fine AFAICT
=================================

I am really confused.

Jacopo

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

The refactoring you did has completely broken the architecture:

* JmsListenerFactory is now used as a singleton that is initialized with the dispatcher that created it
* when a new dispatcher is created, in the constructor you have:

       if (enableJMS) {
            this.jlf = JmsListenerFactory.getInstance(this);
        }

but this call returns the singleton instance initialized with the first dispatcher.

Jacopo


On Jun 22, 2012, at 8:41 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> Jacques,
>
> could you please help me to understand all the changes you did around JMS? I see some issues (e.g. the value of ServiceDispatcher.enableJMS is ignored) and reviewing the history of commits I have seen that you have committed changes, then fixed them (partially reverting?) but all in all I have a lot of confusion and you can probably help in summarizing what was done.
>
> For example the commit:
>
> =================================
> Author: jleroux
> Date: Fri Jun  3 19:05:07 2011
> New Revision: 1131144
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1131144&view=rev
> Log:
> Closes "JmsTopicListener started twice when distributed-cache-clear is active" reported by Martin Kreidenweis at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4296
> Simply avoid to start a JMS Listener thread from Job Manager when DCC is on. Then set it back to previous value.
> =================================
>
> seems to have caused issues that you tried to fix with:
>
> =================================
> Author: jleroux
> Date: Fri Sep 23 19:22:40 2011
> New Revision: 1174964
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1174964&view=rev
> Log:
> A patch from Dimitri Unruh "With no DistributionCacheClear JMS is not working anymore." https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4296
> Tested in both case (with and w/out dcc), works fine AFAICT
> =================================
>
> I am really confused.
>
> Jacopo

[Jacques Le Roux]

I will get back to you as soon as I will get a chance. I did not that for my pleasure, I crossed issues and tried to fix them, maybe
not the right way indeed...
So basically we are now stuck with only one JMS listener, that's your concern, right?

In the meantime, this may help https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?mode=hide&requestId=12321235 (I onlys
searched in summaries easy edit to search also in comments)

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4453 seems the last interesting issue following
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4296
See also https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4454

Actually I will need certainly to also work again on it soon...

Jacques

From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>

> The refactoring you did has completely broken the architecture:
>
> * JmsListenerFactory is now used as a singleton that is initialized with the dispatcher that created it
> * when a new dispatcher is created, in the constructor you have:
>
>       if (enableJMS) {
>            this.jlf = JmsListenerFactory.getInstance(this);
>        }
>
> but this call returns the singleton instance initialized with the first dispatcher.
>
> Jacopo
>
>
> On Jun 22, 2012, at 8:41 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>
>> Jacques,
>>
>> could you please help me to understand all the changes you did around JMS? I see some issues (e.g. the value of
>> ServiceDispatcher.enableJMS is ignored) and reviewing the history of commits I have seen that you have committed changes, then
>> fixed them (partially reverting?) but all in all I have a lot of confusion and you can probably help in summarizing what was
>> done.
>>
>> For example the commit:
>>
>> =================================
>> Author: jleroux
>> Date: Fri Jun  3 19:05:07 2011
>> New Revision: 1131144
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1131144&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Closes "JmsTopicListener started twice when distributed-cache-clear is active" reported by Martin Kreidenweis at
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4296
>> Simply avoid to start a JMS Listener thread from Job Manager when DCC is on. Then set it back to previous value.
>> =================================
>>
>> seems to have caused issues that you tried to fix with:
>>
>> =================================
>> Author: jleroux
>> Date: Fri Sep 23 19:22:40 2011
>> New Revision: 1174964
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1174964&view=rev
>> Log:
>> A patch from Dimitri Unruh "With no DistributionCacheClear JMS is not working anymore."
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4296
>> Tested in both case (with and w/out dcc), works fine AFAICT
>> =================================
>>
>> I am really confused.
>>
>> Jacopo
>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

On Jun 22, 2012, at 11:36 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4453 seems the last interesting issue following https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4296
> See also https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4454

annoying... in short, the old JMS support has been broken by a series of non appropriate fixes (that has been committed to trunk and backported to branches) and then it was decided that a refactoring was necessary.

Jacopo

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
> On Jun 22, 2012, at 11:36 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4453 seems the last interesting issue following
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4296
>> See also https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4454
>
> annoying... in short, the old JMS support has been broken by a series of non appropriate fixes (that has been committed to trunk
> and backported to branches) and then it was decided that a refactoring was necessary.

There were issues, else I will not have messed with that. Notably when using DCC, IIRW...

Jacques

> Jacopo
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

I will have a look this weekend...

Jacques

From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>

> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>> On Jun 22, 2012, at 11:36 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4453 seems the last interesting issue following
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4296
>>> See also https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4454
>>
>> annoying... in short, the old JMS support has been broken by a series of non appropriate fixes (that has been committed to trunk
>> and backported to branches) and then it was decided that a refactoring was necessary.
>
> There were issues, else I will not have messed with that. Notably when using DCC, IIRW...
>
> Jacques
>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

I can also help in this; but it would be really helpful if you could provide one diff of all the changes you did (I mean a diff between the current version and the original version.... excluding all the commits/reverts happened between them) and if you could recall all the issues you were trying to fix.

Regards,

Jacopo

On Jun 22, 2012, at 2:18 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> I will have a look this weekend...
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>>> On Jun 22, 2012, at 11:36 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4453 seems the last interesting issue following https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4296
>>>> See also https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4454
>>>
>>> annoying... in short, the old JMS support has been broken by a series of non appropriate fixes (that has been committed to trunk and backported to branches) and then it was decided that a refactoring was necessary.
>>
>> There were issues, else I will not have messed with that. Notably when using DCC, IIRW...
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Yes, this or reverting all and restarting from scratch, I'm looking at it now

Jacques

From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>

>I can also help in this; but it would be really helpful if you could provide one diff of all the changes you did (I mean a diff
>between the current version and the original version.... excluding all the commits/reverts happened between them) and if you could
>recall all the issues you were trying to fix.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Jun 22, 2012, at 2:18 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> I will have a look this weekend...
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>>>> On Jun 22, 2012, at 11:36 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4453 seems the last interesting issue following
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4296
>>>>> See also https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4454
>>>>
>>>> annoying... in short, the old JMS support has been broken by a series of non appropriate fixes (that has been committed to
>>>> trunk and backported to branches) and then it was decided that a refactoring was necessary.
>>>
>>> There were issues, else I will not have messed with that. Notably when using DCC, IIRW...
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

This should be enough to revert the two commits (I don't know if there were others, maybe I will check later in the weekend).

Jacopo


Index: framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ServiceDispatcher.java
===================================================================
--- framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ServiceDispatcher.java (revision 1353094)
+++ framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ServiceDispatcher.java (working copy)
@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@
 
         // make sure we haven't disabled these features from running
         if (enableJMS) {
-            this.jlf = JmsListenerFactory.getInstance(this);
+            this.jlf = new JmsListenerFactory(this);
         }
 
         if (enableSvcs) {
Index: framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/jms/JmsListenerFactory.java
===================================================================
--- framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/jms/JmsListenerFactory.java (revision 1352570)
+++ framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/jms/JmsListenerFactory.java (working copy)
@@ -47,27 +47,12 @@
     protected static Map<String, GenericMessageListener> listeners = FastMap.newInstance();
     protected static Map<String, Element> servers = FastMap.newInstance();
 
-    protected static JmsListenerFactory jlf = null;
-
     protected ServiceDispatcher dispatcher;
     protected boolean firstPass = true;
     protected int  loadable = 0;
     protected int connected = 0;
     protected Thread thread;
 
-
-    public static JmsListenerFactory getInstance(ServiceDispatcher dispatcher){
-        if (jlf == null) {
-            synchronized (JmsListenerFactory.class) {
-                if (jlf == null) {
-                    jlf = new JmsListenerFactory(dispatcher);
-                }
-            }
-        }
-
-        return jlf;
-    }
-
     public JmsListenerFactory(ServiceDispatcher dispatcher) {
         this.dispatcher = dispatcher;
         thread = new Thread(this, this.toString());


On Jun 23, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Yes, this or reverting all and restarting from scratch, I'm looking at it now
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>> I can also help in this; but it would be really helpful if you could provide one diff of all the changes you did (I mean a diff between the current version and the original version.... excluding all the commits/reverts happened between them) and if you could recall all the issues you were trying to fix.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Jun 22, 2012, at 2:18 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> I will have a look this weekend...
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>>>>> On Jun 22, 2012, at 11:36 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4453 seems the last interesting issue following https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4296
>>>>>> See also https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4454
>>>>>
>>>>> annoying... in short, the old JMS support has been broken by a series of non appropriate fixes (that has been committed to trunk and backported to branches) and then it was decided that a refactoring was necessary.
>>>>
>>>> There were issues, else I will not have messed with that. Notably when using DCC, IIRW...
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>

[Jacques Le Roux]

I just did a quick review of the status:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4455 must obviously be done: "Prevent a Singelton creation with double lock "
There is a pending patch from Martin Kreidenweis at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4453 which needs our attention,
fortunately it sill applies (did not get further)

Not sure I will get enough time this weekend to work on this...

Jacques

From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>

>I will have a look this weekend...
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>>> On Jun 22, 2012, at 11:36 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4453 seems the last interesting issue following
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4296
>>>> See also https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4454
>>>
>>> annoying... in short, the old JMS support has been broken by a series of non appropriate fixes (that has been committed to trunk
>>> and backported to branches) and then it was decided that a refactoring was necessary.
>>
>> There were issues, else I will not have messed with that. Notably when using DCC, IIRW...
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

The patch attached to OFBIZ-4453 has issues and I don't see how it can fix the problems introduced by the commits I reported at the beginning of this thread. The patch I have attached to an earlier post in this thread at least should revert all that work.

Jacopo

On Jun 24, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> I just did a quick review of the status:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4455 must obviously be done: "Prevent a Singelton creation with double lock "
> There is a pending patch from Martin Kreidenweis at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4453 which needs our attention, fortunately it sill applies (did not get further)
>
> Not sure I will get enough time this weekend to work on this...
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>> I will have a look this weekend...
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>>>> On Jun 22, 2012, at 11:36 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4453 seems the last interesting issue following
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4296
>>>>> See also https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4454
>>>>
>>>> annoying... in short, the old JMS support has been broken by a series of non appropriate fixes (that has been committed to trunk
>>>> and backported to branches) and then it was decided that a refactoring was necessary.
>>>
>>> There were issues, else I will not have messed with that. Notably when using DCC, IIRW...
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Sorry I did not get a chance to look at it seriously since. As long as it does not prevent DCC to work it's fine with me

Jacques

From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>

> The patch attached to OFBIZ-4453 has issues and I don't see how it can fix the problems introduced by the commits I reported at
> the beginning of this thread. The patch I have attached to an earlier post in this thread at least should revert all that work.
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Jun 24, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> I just did a quick review of the status:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4455 must obviously be done: "Prevent a Singelton creation with double lock "
>> There is a pending patch from Martin Kreidenweis at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4453 which needs our attention,
>> fortunately it sill applies (did not get further)
>>
>> Not sure I will get enough time this weekend to work on this...
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>>> I will have a look this weekend...
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>>>>> On Jun 22, 2012, at 11:36 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4453 seems the last interesting issue following
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4296
>>>>>> See also https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4454
>>>>>
>>>>> annoying... in short, the old JMS support has been broken by a series of non appropriate fixes (that has been committed to
>>>>> trunk
>>>>> and backported to branches) and then it was decided that a refactoring was necessary.
>>>>
>>>> There were issues, else I will not have messed with that. Notably when using DCC, IIRW...
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

Speaking about DCC, I see a series of commits you did about it that make me uncomfortable; I am talking about the ones related to:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3987
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4296

for reference this is probably at the beginning of the story (no commit associated to it):

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4202

Could you please help me to understand all these commits? Would you consider reverting all of them and then rediscussing the *original* issue in the dev list and come up with a good design?
After this will be done we will be able to resolve also these:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4453
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4454
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4455

Jacopo



On Jun 26, 2012, at 7:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Sorry I did not get a chance to look at it seriously since. As long as it does not prevent DCC to work it's fine with me
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>> The patch attached to OFBIZ-4453 has issues and I don't see how it can fix the problems introduced by the commits I reported at the beginning of this thread. The patch I have attached to an earlier post in this thread at least should revert all that work.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Jun 24, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> I just did a quick review of the status:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4455 must obviously be done: "Prevent a Singelton creation with double lock "
>>> There is a pending patch from Martin Kreidenweis at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4453 which needs our attention, fortunately it sill applies (did not get further)
>>>
>>> Not sure I will get enough time this weekend to work on this...
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>>>> I will have a look this weekend...
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> On Jun 22, 2012, at 11:36 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4453 seems the last interesting issue following
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4296
>>>>>>> See also https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4454
>>>>>>
>>>>>> annoying... in short, the old JMS support has been broken by a series of non appropriate fixes (that has been committed to trunk
>>>>>> and backported to branches) and then it was decided that a refactoring was necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> There were issues, else I will not have messed with that. Notably when using DCC, IIRW...
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Yes, I agree we should do an overhaul there. I agree it's not pretty. It works, as long as you don't need more than one JMS service,
not sure if you need more (seems that Adrian was asking for).
I have never used more than one yet. It could be that I will need more than one soon. So would be a perfect match, though I have no
planning yet...

Jacques

From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>

> Speaking about DCC, I see a series of commits you did about it that make me uncomfortable; I am talking about the ones related to:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3987
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4296
>
> for reference this is probably at the beginning of the story (no commit associated to it):
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4202
>
> Could you please help me to understand all these commits? Would you consider reverting all of them and then rediscussing the
> *original* issue in the dev list and come up with a good design?
> After this will be done we will be able to resolve also these:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4453
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4454
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4455
>
> Jacopo
>
>
>
> On Jun 26, 2012, at 7:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> Sorry I did not get a chance to look at it seriously since. As long as it does not prevent DCC to work it's fine with me
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>>> The patch attached to OFBIZ-4453 has issues and I don't see how it can fix the problems introduced by the commits I reported at
>>> the beginning of this thread. The patch I have attached to an earlier post in this thread at least should revert all that work.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Jun 24, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> I just did a quick review of the status:
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4455 must obviously be done: "Prevent a Singelton creation with double lock "
>>>> There is a pending patch from Martin Kreidenweis at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4453 which needs our attention,
>>>> fortunately it sill applies (did not get further)
>>>>
>>>> Not sure I will get enough time this weekend to work on this...
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>>>>> I will have a look this weekend...
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> On Jun 22, 2012, at 11:36 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4453 seems the last interesting issue following
>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4296
>>>>>>>> See also https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4454
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> annoying... in short, the old JMS support has been broken by a series of non appropriate fixes (that has been committed to
>>>>>>> trunk
>>>>>>> and backported to branches) and then it was decided that a refactoring was necessary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There were issues, else I will not have messed with that. Notably when using DCC, IIRW...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>
>

[Adrian Crum-3]

I don't recall asking for more than one JMS service. All I know is the
JMS code was broken such that when you configure OFBiz to not use JMS,
it is used anyway. In other words, there is no way to turn it off.

-Adrian

On 7/17/2012 7:29 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Yes, I agree we should do an overhaul there. I agree it's not pretty.
> It works, as long as you don't need more than one JMS service,
> not sure if you need more (seems that Adrian was asking for).
> I have never used more than one yet. It could be that I will need more
> than one soon. So would be a perfect match, though I have no
> planning yet...
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>> Speaking about DCC, I see a series of commits you did about it that
>> make me uncomfortable; I am talking about the ones related to:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3987
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4296
>>
>> for reference this is probably at the beginning of the story (no
>> commit associated to it):
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4202
>>
>> Could you please help me to understand all these commits? Would you
>> consider reverting all of them and then rediscussing the
>> *original* issue in the dev list and come up with a good design?
>> After this will be done we will be able to resolve also these:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4453
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4454
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4455
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 26, 2012, at 7:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry I did not get a chance to look at it seriously since. As long
>>> as it does not prevent DCC to work it's fine with me
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>>>> The patch attached to OFBIZ-4453 has issues and I don't see how it
>>>> can fix the problems introduced by the commits I reported at
>>>> the beginning of this thread. The patch I have attached to an
>>>> earlier post in this thread at least should revert all that work.
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 24, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I just did a quick review of the status:
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4455 must obviously be
>>>>> done: "Prevent a Singelton creation with double lock "
>>>>> There is a pending patch from Martin Kreidenweis at
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4453 which needs our
>>>>> attention,
>>>>> fortunately it sill applies (did not get further)
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure I will get enough time this weekend to work on this...
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> I will have a look this weekend...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> On Jun 22, 2012, at 11:36 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4453 seems the
>>>>>>>>> last interesting issue following
>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4296
>>>>>>>>> See also https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4454
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> annoying... in short, the old JMS support has been broken by a
>>>>>>>> series of non appropriate fixes (that has been committed to
>>>>>>>> trunk
>>>>>>>> and backported to branches) and then it was decided that a
>>>>>>>> refactoring was necessary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There were issues, else I will not have messed with that.
>>>>>>> Notably when using DCC, IIRW...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]>
>I don't recall asking for more than one JMS service. All I know is the JMS code was broken such that when you configure OFBiz to
>not use JMS, it is used anyway. In other words, there is no way to turn it off.

Ha yes indeed, I extrapolated to my possible need, which is maybe already covered, since I did not try. Anway we all agree it's
messy. Mostly due to the intoduction of Multitenant I guess, maybe earlier.

Jacques

> -Adrian
>
> On 7/17/2012 7:29 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> Yes, I agree we should do an overhaul there. I agree it's not pretty. It works, as long as you don't need more than one JMS
>> service,
>> not sure if you need more (seems that Adrian was asking for).
>> I have never used more than one yet. It could be that I will need more than one soon. So would be a perfect match, though I have
>> no
>> planning yet...
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>>> Speaking about DCC, I see a series of commits you did about it that make me uncomfortable; I am talking about the ones related
>>> to:
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3987
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4296
>>>
>>> for reference this is probably at the beginning of the story (no commit associated to it):
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4202
>>>
>>> Could you please help me to understand all these commits? Would you consider reverting all of them and then rediscussing the
>>> *original* issue in the dev list and come up with a good design?
>>> After this will be done we will be able to resolve also these:
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4453
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4454
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4455
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 26, 2012, at 7:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry I did not get a chance to look at it seriously since. As long as it does not prevent DCC to work it's fine with me
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>>>>> The patch attached to OFBIZ-4453 has issues and I don't see how it can fix the problems introduced by the commits I reported
>>>>> at
>>>>> the beginning of this thread. The patch I have attached to an earlier post in this thread at least should revert all that
>>>>> work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 24, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I just did a quick review of the status:
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4455 must obviously be done: "Prevent a Singelton creation with double lock "
>>>>>> There is a pending patch from Martin Kreidenweis at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4453 which needs our
>>>>>> attention,
>>>>>> fortunately it sill applies (did not get further)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not sure I will get enough time this weekend to work on this...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> I will have a look this weekend...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 22, 2012, at 11:36 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4453 seems the last interesting issue following
>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4296
>>>>>>>>>> See also https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4454
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> annoying... in short, the old JMS support has been broken by a series of non appropriate fixes (that has been committed to
>>>>>>>>> trunk
>>>>>>>>> and backported to branches) and then it was decided that a refactoring was necessary.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There were issues, else I will not have messed with that. Notably when using DCC, IIRW...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

[Martin Kreidenweis]

Hi,

On 26.06.2012 18:45, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> The patch attached to OFBIZ-4453 has issues and I don't see how it can fix the problems
> introduced by the commits I reported at the beginning of this thread. The patch I have attached
> to an earlier post in this thread at least should revert all that work.

The patch attached to OFBIZ-4453 (JMS-keep-connection.patch) is not supposed to fix anything. It is
just a performance improvement that we did to the code.
(I haven't been working on any OFBiz project for some months now, so I can't really comment on
current issues.)

Best Regards,
Martin