On 18 Mar 2011, at 15:28, Vladimir Blagojevic wrote:
> On 11-03-18 10:05 AM, Galder ZamarreƱo wrote:
>> Hmmm, but we know there're problems with doing this, right?
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-937 - Vladimir, did you get around to investigating
that?
> I have not found the root cause. Paul detected the problem in AS test
> suite. I tested his AS configuration in our test suite and it worked
> flawlessly. After that, I "outsourced" the investigation to Paul. Since
> all our state transfer tests were passing I thought its worth
> investigating AS setup. That's were the investigation died.
It "died" because we were too close to a 4.2.1.FINAL to risk changing something
like this. Hence my proposal to leave FLUSH in by default but to allow a FLUSH-free
config via a (temporary, 4.2.x only) system property while we investigate properly
removing FLUSH in 5.0.
I totally agree! IIRC it should work out of the box, all we have to do
is remove explicit checks for FLUSH in transport that raise exceptions.