[JBoss JIRA] Created: (JBRULES-449) Logical dependency bug, justifier tuple contains retracted handles, logically depend object stays in working memory
by Juergen none (JIRA)
Logical dependency bug, justifier tuple contains retracted handles, logically depend object stays in working memory
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: JBRULES-449
URL: http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-449
Project: JBoss Rules
Issue Type: Feature Request
Security Level: Public (Everyone can see)
Components: Reteoo
Affects Versions: 3.0.4
Environment: jdk 1.4.2_10
Reporter: Juergen none
Assigned To: Mark Proctor
A rather complicated, intertwined set of rules leads to a logically asserted fact, that remains in working memory, even after its justifiers have been retracted.
Sadly I have no unit-test, but I can outline the rules and execution sequence as reported by a listener (a ... assert, al ... assert logical, r ... retract)
Its a buggy (R5 twice) implementation of a accumulating set of rules I posted in the user list some time ago.
FFF(A), FFF(B) are of same class but not equal, @... is systemHashCode, so different instances, but possible equal (as mentioned)
classes without @ have only one instance in working memory
a XXX
R0: XXX -> al DDD
a AAA (external assert)
Sequence of rules fired
R1: AAA -> al GGG
R2: DDD, GGG -> al CCC
R3: GGG -> al EEE
R4: EEE, DDD, CCC -> a BBB@15737ca, al FFF@b2d75c(A) (BBB@15737ca contributes to hash/equals of FFF@b2d75c)
R5: BBB, CCC, FFF(A), not FFF(B) -> mod CCC (hashcodes changes, but all rules are still fulfilled as before), a FFF@b274de(B)
R5 again (modify triggered): EEE, DDD, CCC -> a BBB@16d8ba (but equals(BBB@15737ca) is true), (+ my guess, object created and assert called but no listener info: al FFF@2aefe3(A) (equals FFF@b2d75c, backing its logical dependency) (BBB@16d8ba contributes to Hash/equals))
---
r AAA (external retract)
-> (according to listener):
r AAA
r GGG
r EEE
r CCC
breakpoint, screenshot --> justifier list is invalid, contains retracted handles
PoolCondition would be DDD, the only valid handle in the (EEE, DDD, CCC) tuple
r XXX (retract of XXX has no consequence, just the last handle, still valid in the screenshot, becomes invalid too)
->
r XXX
r DDD
workingMemory.getObjects() lists FFF@b2d75c(A) and FFF@b274de(B)
for Rulebase-properties:
- RuleBaseConfiguration.PROPERTY_ASSERT_BEHAVIOR -> RuleBaseConfiguration.WM_BEHAVIOR_IDENTITY
- empty
Major lead could be that after commenting out "mod CCC", FFF(A) is retracted (+ R5 not fired a second time)
+ problem with changed hashcode of CCC ?
+ problem with second instances of BBB and FFF(A) being asserted
+ FFF(B) being assert normally, not logically
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://jira.jboss.com/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
19 years, 2 months
[JBoss JIRA] Created: (JBCACHE-964) Optional 1.x marshalling for CacheLoaders using VersionAwareMarshaller
by Galder Zamarreno (JIRA)
Optional 1.x marshalling for CacheLoaders using VersionAwareMarshaller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: JBCACHE-964
URL: http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBCACHE-964
Project: JBoss Cache
Issue Type: Task
Security Level: Public (Everyone can see)
Components: Cache loaders
Reporter: Galder Zamarreno
Assigned To: Galder Zamarreno
Priority: Minor
Fix For: 2.0.0.BETA2, 2.0.0.GA
Customers that want to use JBossCache 2.x might be reluctant to
migrate their data from one format to the other. I can see how an
existing customer might think this is a proper pain in the ass,
independent of the benefits, and might reduce adoption among them.
We want to remove barriers upgrading, but at the same time, we want
new customer to use new marshalling, so I'd actually implement the
possibility to use 1.x marshalling which is plan java serialization at
the CacheLoader level. This could easily achieved adding a property to
the <properties> section.
The default in 2.x should be to use VAM and only people who are
resilient to change their existing stores to VAM should use the 1.x
option, which would need explicitly definition.
This option also makes it easier for migration purpouses as customers
should be able to start two cache instances with different cache loader
marshalling method set. They could then loop through the first one using
get operations and call put in the second instance.
Just note that this does not apply to the marshalling done at
replication level as there's no hard data that needs migrating.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://jira.jboss.com/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
19 years, 2 months
[JBoss JIRA] Created: (JBTM-189) transaction manager is not properly closing connections on slave server when slave server has exceptions.
by Quande Ren (JIRA)
transaction manager is not properly closing connections on slave server when slave server has exceptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: JBTM-189
URL: http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBTM-189
Project: JBoss Transaction Manager
Issue Type: Bug
Security Level: Public (Everyone can see)
Components: JTS Implementation
Environment: JBossAS4.0.5, JBossTS4.2.2, multiple servers, distributed transactions.
Reporter: Quande Ren
Assigned To: Mark Little
Priority: Critical
This is fully discussed at the forum: http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&t=97856
I am using JBoss4.0.5.GA and JBossTS4.2.2. I have a ServerA and ServerB and a client. here is my flow senario:
Code:
1. client call a stateless session BeanA on ServerA,
2. BeanA do some pre work,
3. BeanA then call another stateless session BeanB on serverB,
4. BeanB do some work,
5. BeanA do some post work.
the result shows that if either step 2 or step 5 failed, then the whole transaction get rollbacked correctly. but if step 4 failed, then transaction on ServerA rollback, but the transaction on ServerB does not get rollbacked or committed, we can see the debug information says the xa datasource transaction get started but never get rollbacked. and the database connection remains in use, and when we run the test several times, all the database connections will used up.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://jira.jboss.com/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
19 years, 2 months