Major Description
Sounds like a great idea to me 
Please go ahead and submit a jira with the patch and we'll get it integrated ASAP
On 1/4/07, Chris Hofstaedter <chrish@nmwco.com> wrote:
> I ran into this issue as well on <= 4.0.2. I never tested it against
> 4.1. The FailoverTransport doesn't shutdown if it is disconnected at
> the time of the shutdown.
>
> I believe that the root cause is in the
> FailoverTransport.oneway(Command
> command) function which will hold onto the command and keep trying to
> reconnect until the message is sent or the transport is disposed.
>
> I applied a local patch that seems to solve the problem. Note that
> I've only tested the patch against 4.0.2.
>
> Specifically, I early return from the oneway function if the command
> is ShutdownInfo and the connectedTransport is null. This seems to
> solve the problem in that I get clean shutdowns on the client when
> failover is true and the client is presently disconnected.
>
> Does this seem like a reasonable patch? Should I create a JIRA with
> this info?
>
>
>
> ----Original Message----
> From: James Strachan james.strachan@gmail.com
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 4:46 AM
> To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org
> Subject: Re: failover mode and client shutdown
>
> There could be a bug relating to closes with the failover transport
> possibly, but the ActiveMQConnection does wait up to the closeTimeout
> for a close to succeed before shutting down - so you could try reduce
> the timeout.
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/maven/activemq-core/apidocs/org/a
> pa
> che/activemq/ActiveMQConnection.html#setCloseTimeout(int)
>
>
> On 12/12/06, Keith Irwin <keith.irwin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Folks--
> >
> > When we have clients running and we take down AMQ (<= 4.1.0), then
> > attempt to shutdown the clients with Control-C (rather than kill the
> > JVM with a -9), the clients won't shut down. It's as if a "close"
> > on the failover connection never reaches the amq client classes.
> >
> > I note that in the 4.1.0 release notes, this issue is referenced,
> > and the advice is to set the maxReconnectAttempts (or similar)
> > property to something non-zero.
> >
> > The problem is that we don't want there to be a max number of
> > attempts. Unless we specifically want to take down the client (say,
> > for an apt-get package upgrade), we want it to keep on trying
> > forever.
> >
> > SO, my question: Is there an architectural reason for not being able
> > to close a failover connection if AMQ is down?
> >
> > If it isn't impossible due to tradeoffs elsewhere in the code base,
> > we might be willing to submit a patch to fix the issue.
> >
> > Our only other recourse is to attempt to close the connections in
> > separate threads, then timeout those threads after a while and fall
> > out the end of the java process.
> >
> > For instance:
> >
> > Thread th = new Thread(new Runnable() {
> > public void run()
> > });
> > th.start();
> >
> > // give up after 2 seconds
> > Thread.currentThread().join(2000);
> >
> > I guess this is do-able, but it seems, you know, some how, well,
> wrong.
> >
> > So, is it worth investigating a patch to AMQ?
> >
> > Keith
> >