Choice of IO exception handler with pluggable storage lockers?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Choice of IO exception handler with pluggable storage lockers?

paulgale
Hi,

ActiveMQ 5.9.1

I have configured ActiveMQ to use the kaha persistence adapter with a
lease-database-locker.

However, this brings up the question as to which IO exception handler one
should configure: the DefaultIOExceptionHandler or the
JDBCIOExceptionHandler?

The JDBCIOExceptionHandler's method hasLockOwnership() always returns true
if the persistence adapter is not an instance of JDBCPersistenceAdapter
(which it won't be as I'm using kaha). Therefore it cannot be used.

Conversely, the DefaultIOExceptionHandler's hasLockOwnership() method
always returns true, therefore it cannot be used to detect when the
lease-database-locker loses lock ownership.

Is this a bug in the JDBCIOExceptionHandler?

Thanks,
Paul
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Choice of IO exception handler with pluggable storage lockers?

gtully
that looks like a bug.

On 6 May 2014 14:23, Paul Gale <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> ActiveMQ 5.9.1
>
> I have configured ActiveMQ to use the kaha persistence adapter with a
> lease-database-locker.
>
> However, this brings up the question as to which IO exception handler one
> should configure: the DefaultIOExceptionHandler or the
> JDBCIOExceptionHandler?
>
> The JDBCIOExceptionHandler's method hasLockOwnership() always returns true
> if the persistence adapter is not an instance of JDBCPersistenceAdapter
> (which it won't be as I'm using kaha). Therefore it cannot be used.
>
> Conversely, the DefaultIOExceptionHandler's hasLockOwnership() method
> always returns true, therefore it cannot be used to detect when the
> lease-database-locker loses lock ownership.
>
> Is this a bug in the JDBCIOExceptionHandler?
>
> Thanks,
> Paul



--
http://redhat.com
http://blog.garytully.com