Even if we keep a single valve instance per connection, I see no reason to involve remotingConnection at such low level, as you do in | JMSRemotingConnection remotingConnection = null; | | try | { | valve.enter(); | | // it's important to only retrieve the remotingConnection while inside the Valve, as we | // guarantee that no failover has happened yet | remotingConnection = connectionState.getRemotingConnection(); | return invocation.invokeNext(); | } | catch (CannotConnectException e) | { | log.warn("We got a CannotConnectionException and we are trying a failover", e); | ((ConnectionDelegate)connectionState.getDelegate()).performFailover(remotingConnection); | return invocation.invokeNext(); | | } | catch (IOException e) | { | log.warn("We got an IOException and we are trying a failover", e); | ((ConnectionDelegate)connectionState.getDelegate()).performFailover(remotingConnection); | return invocation.invokeNext(); | } Why don't we just message the connection: "there's failure, deal with it!". The connection has access to the proper remoting connection instance, why does it need to receive as an argument of the call? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3999282#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...