Details

    • Type: Bug Bug
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Cannot Reproduce
    • Affects Version/s: 5.2.0
    • Fix Version/s: None
    • Component/s: Broker
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      Symptoms

      the following URI "patterns" cause unexpected behaviour:

      1) failover://(tcp://host:port)?connectionParameter=value

      2) failover://(tcp://host:port?tcpParameter=value1)?failoverParameter=value3

      3) failover://(tcp://host:port?tcpParameter=value1)?connectionParamater=value2&failoverParameter=value3

      1) A failover URL is not parsed correctly in ActiveMQ version 5.2.0. When there are parameters for the connection (e.g.: prefetch policy parameters "jms.prefetchSize.all", etc) This issue has to do with the invalid parsing of the URI.
      The issue was found when trying to append connection parameters to a failover URI. The problem with this is basically that the failover URI is not a "generic URI" (see RFC 2396 for more details), that is, it is not of the form:

      <scheme>://<authority><path>?<query>

      Although the URI is composed of

      <scheme>:<scheme-specific-part>

      and is thus a valid URI according to the RFC.

      The method

      URISupport.createURIWithQuery(URI, String)

      return and incorrect URI for a failover URI, because of the scheme of this URI. This is the content of the method:

      <<< CODE

      URISupport.createURIWithQuery(URI, String){
      return new URI(uri.getScheme(), uri.getUserInfo(), uri.getHost(), uri.getPort(), uri.getPath(), query, uri.getFragment());
      }

      <<< /CODE

      When parsing the URI in ActiveMQConnectionFactory.createURI(String) with:

      new java.util.URI(String)

      The resulting URI has some missing or "invalid" values. For instance, with the following URL:

      "failover://(tcp://host:port)?jms.prefetchSize.all=30"

      the resulting URI has the following values set:

      host=null
      port=-1
      authority="(tcp:"
      path="//host:port)"
      query="connectionParameter=value"

      the path gets its value because of the "/" after "(tcp:".

      The result is that when

      ActiveMQConnectionFacotry.setBrokerURL(String) Line 343:

      <<< CODE

      this.brokerURL = URISupport.createRemainingURI(this.brokerURL, map);

      <<< /CODE

      is excecuted, an exeption is thrown (message="Illegal character in port number"), because of the invalid por number.
      This is silently ignored in the ActiveMQConnectionFactory.setBroker(Strin) method and the values of the brokerURL are not updated without the connection parameters.
      Consecuently, when the connection is created, the following exception is thrown:

      java.lang.IllegalArgumentException "Invalid connect parameters: ..."

      Because of the connectionParameter that was not removed from the brokerURL.

      2) The second URI pattern causes failover paramters to be ignored but the tcp transport gets the correct parameters.

      The resulting URI in ActiveMQConnectionFactory contains the following invalid values:

      host=null
      port=-1
      authority="(tcp:"
      path="//host:port"
      query="tcpParameter=value)?failoverParamater=value"

      this is because of the extra ? in the "nested" URI.
      This URI works correctly, but if a connection parameter is the first parameter in the composite URI as in (3):

      failover://(tcp://host:port?tcpParameter=value1)?connectionParamater=value2&failoverParameter=value3

      that parameter would be omited, and the failover transport would fail when connecting because of an invalid connection parameter being set for the failover transport.

      Conclusion:

      A modification of the parsing in

      ActiveMQConnectionFactory.setBrokerURL(String)

      should solve the query parameter problems.
      The parameter parsing should consider the nested URIs, and the call to

      URISupport.createRemainingURI(URI, Map);

      should create a "nested" URI (composite) if required.
      Some other modification could also be required.

        Activity

        Hide
        Gary Tully added a comment -

        could you validate against trunk or add your variants to http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/activemq/trunk/activemq-core/src/test/java/org/apache/activemq/transport/failover/FailoverUriTest.java?view=markup
        there have been some improvements in this area for 5.4

        Show
        Gary Tully added a comment - could you validate against trunk or add your variants to http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/activemq/trunk/activemq-core/src/test/java/org/apache/activemq/transport/failover/FailoverUriTest.java?view=markup there have been some improvements in this area for 5.4
        Hide
        Timothy Bish added a comment -

        A valid test case is required the given URIs seem to work fine against trunk.

        Show
        Timothy Bish added a comment - A valid test case is required the given URIs seem to work fine against trunk.

          People

          • Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            Javier Michelson
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            0 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved:

              Development