[jbpm-dev] dispose sessions in PerProcessInstanceRuntimeManager

[Maciej Swiderski]

Jeff,

the calls are there to cover cases when the creation of RuntimeManager 
are not executed as part of an active transaction since only then the 
transaction synchronization is registered. I guess that in your case you 
are within container manager transaction and thus tx synchronization is 
registered which causes the behavior you described.
I'll check that to ensure that the init method will not call the 
dispose/destroy if it's within active transaction.

Just for information as that might not be directly clear why the init 
method creates session and the disposes/destroys it - it is to ensure 
that start events will be properly initialized - e.g. timer start event 
based processes will be by that notified and executed according to 
definitions.

Maciej

W dniu 09.08.2013 19:17, Jeffrey Bride pisze:
> Hi.
>   I'm doing a deep dive into the new jbpm6 
> PerProcessInstanceRuntimeManager functionality.
>   Impressive.
>
>
>   One minor observation is that it seems that both the 
> engine.getKieSession().destroy();    and 
>  disposeRuntimeEngine(engine);  function calls  in the init() 
> <https://github.com/droolsjbpm/jbpm/blob/master/jbpm-runtime-manager/src/main/java/org/jbpm/runtime/manager/impl/PerProcessInstanceRuntimeManager.java#L261> 
> function are redundant.
>   Neither of these calls seem necessary.
>   Previous to these function calls,  an instance of 
>  DisposeSessionTransactionSynchronization() was already registered 
> .... which takes care of appropriately disposing the session after the 
> JTA transaction has committed.
>   Subsequently, when either (or both) of these redundant calls to 
> close the session prior to the transaction has committed, the 
> following exception occurs:
>
> java.lang.IllegalStateException: Illegal method call. This session was 
> previously disposed.
>   at 
> org.drools.core.reteoo.DisposedReteooWorkingMemory.getProcessRuntime(DisposedReteooWorkingMemory.java:262) 
> [drools-core-6.1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar:6.1.0-SNAPSHOT]
>   at 
> org.drools.core.impl.StatefulKnowledgeSessionImpl.getProcessRuntime(StatefulKnowledgeSessionImpl.java:868) 
> [drools-core-6.1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar:6.1.0-SNAPSHOT]
>   at 
> org.drools.persistence.SingleSessionCommandService$SynchronizationImpl.afterCompletion(SingleSessionCommandService.java:504) 
> [drools-persistence-jpa-6.1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar:6.1.0-SNAPSHOT]
>   at 
> org.drools.persistence.jta.JtaTransactionSynchronizationAdapter.afterCompletion(JtaTransactionSynchronizationAdapter.java:22) 
> [drools-persistence-jpa-6.1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar:6.1.0-SNAPSHOT]
>   at 
> com.arjuna.ats.internal.jta.resources.arjunacore.SynchronizationImple.afterCompletion(SynchronizationImple.java:96)
>   at 
> com.arjuna.ats.arjuna.coordinator.TwoPhaseCoordinator.afterCompletion(TwoPhaseCoordinator.java:402)
>
>
> I'm testing in an EAP6.1 environment using JTA transactions provided 
> by the app server.
> commenting out those apparently redundant function calls does not seem 
> to cause any other negative side effects and the session is still 
> closed by the DisposeSessionTransactionSynchronization instance.
>
> jeff
>
> -- 
> Jeffrey Bride
> Senior Principal Solution Architect
> Global Partner Enablement
> Red Hat (www.redhat.com)
> cell: 303.523.7885
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jbpm-dev mailing list
> jbpm-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbpm-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jbpm-dev/attachments/20130811/c237c49a/attachment.html