When in XA Transaction Active-MQ integrated with OpenEJB hangs in the isSameRM method of LocalAndXATransaction.

• Key: AMQ-1438
• Type: Bug
• Status: Closed
• Resolution: Fixed
• Priority: Critical
• Assignee: David Jencks
• Reporter: Manu T George
• Component/s: Connector, Transport
• Affects Version/s: 4.1.1
• Fix Version/s: 4.1.2

Description

I was facing a problem with the AMQ 4.1 with the LocalAndXATransaction class's isSameRM waiting indefinitely. The wait is because waitForBrokerInfo calls brokerInfoReceived.await()
where brokerInfoReceived is a countdown latch. Once this is waiting it
never gets resumed.

To trigger it the method onCommand(final Object o) has to be called on
org.apache.activemq.ActiveMQConnection.

Comments

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENEJB-702 is blocked because of this

[Manu T George]

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-3354 is depending on this

[Manu T George]

This fixes the issue. Running the tests shows the same no of failures as before applying the patch so assuming it doesn't break anything.

[Manu T George]

I believe I owe an explanation for the JIRA.

The problem faced is a hang in the method below when the Geronimo TM calls it.

public boolean isSameRM(XAResource other) throws XAException {
if (other instanceof WrapperNamedXAResource) { return xaResource.isSameRM(((WrapperNamedXAResource)other).xaResource); }
return false;
}

The hang is because this method invokes org,apache.activemq.ActiveMQConnection.getResourceManagerId()

This method is shown below

public String getResourceManagerId() throws JMSException { waitForBrokerInfo(); if( brokerInfo==null ) throw new JMSException("Connection failed before Broker info was received."); return brokerInfo.getBrokerId().getValue(); }

The waitForBrokerInfo() method is shown below

private void waitForBrokerInfo() throws JMSException {
try { brokerInfoReceived.await(); } catch (InterruptedException e) { Thread.currentThread().interrupt(); throw JMSExceptionSupport.create(e); }
}

Once await is called on brokerInfoReceived which is a countdown latch currently brokerInfoReceived.countDown() never gets called. Actually this should get called on the
else if ( command.isBrokerInfo() ) { this.brokerInfo = (BrokerInfo)command; brokerInfoReceived.countDown(); this.optimizeAcknowledge &= !this.brokerInfo.isFaultTolerantConfiguration(); }

block of the onCommand method of org.apache.activemq.ActiveMQConnection.

This is not getting called.

On investigating and with some help from AMQ IRC , I found that there are two methods in org.apache.activemq.transport.vm.VMTransport. They are given below

protected void syncOneWay(Object command){
final TransportListener tl=peer.transportListener;
prePeerSetQueue=peer.prePeerSetQueue;
if(tl==null){ prePeerSetQueue.add(command); }else{ tl.onCommand(command); }
}

protected void asyncOneWay(Object command) throws IOException{
messageQueue=getMessageQueue();
try{ messageQueue.put(command); wakeup(); }catch(final InterruptedException e){ log.error("messageQueue interupted",e); throw new IOException(e.getMessage()); }
}

The problem here is even when i set async=true for the VMTransport when the command BrokerInfo is sent syncOneWay is called. At that time TransportListener tl=null. So it gets added to prePeerSetQueue. The reason for this happening is that in org.apache.activemq.transport.vm.VMTransportFactory when the below lines are called a brokerInfo is sent as server.connect() is called. The async=true is not yet set resulting in the syncOneWay getting called. Only after that IntrospectionSupport.setProperties(vmtransport,options); is called and async is set to true. Due to this inconsistency the BrokerInfo command gets lost.

VMTransport vmtransport=server.connect();
IntrospectionSupport.setProperties(vmtransport,options);

I hope I made the issue clear. Can someone verify the patch or make a fix for this.

[David Jencks]

Applied modified version of the patch in rev 640340. Passed options into server.connect method so that correct TransportAcceptListener is sure to be used.

[David Jencks]

Would be a good idea to check if it works in 5.1