Bug 907537
Summary: | session.createConsumer do not start session | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise MRG | Reporter: | ppecka <ppecka> | ||||||
Component: | qpid-jca | Assignee: | Rajith Attapattu <rattapat+nobody> | ||||||
Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | MRG Quality Engineering <mrgqe-bugs> | ||||||
Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |||||||
Priority: | high | ||||||||
Version: | 2.2 | CC: | csuconic, esammons, iboverma, jross, lzhaldyb, vhubeika | ||||||
Target Milestone: | 2.3 | Keywords: | Patch | ||||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||||||||
OS: | Unspecified | ||||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||||
Last Closed: | 2013-02-14 09:38:49 UTC | Type: | Bug | ||||||
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||||
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||||
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||||
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||||
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||||
Embargoed: | |||||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
ppecka
2013-02-04 16:25:43 UTC
Created attachment 692870 [details]
EAP6 config
Rajith, please evaluate the patch. This patch is does not seem to be correct from a behavior pov. Looking at the code, the start() method in QpidRASessionFactoryImpl is responsible for starting the sessions it has created. Subsequently any newly created sessions will be started, provided the start method had been called before. This patch is causing sessions to be started as soon as they are created. This may not be desirable for certain applications. I'm not too familiar with JCA, but I wonder why the start() method is not called explicitly ? (In JMS the application is responsible for starting the connections, in JCA I'm not sure if it's the application or the App Server who's responsible for that.) The test seems broken to me... I think the test was supposed to call start on the sessionReceiver... otherwise consumer.receive() wouldn't return anything. I think this is a rejection. Or am I missing anything here? ok, clebert is right. but i wonder why this "if" statement is there. |