]
Vaclav Dedik resolved JBSEAM-4863.
----------------------------------
Resolution: Done
Fixed.
Memory Leak when calling @Destroy (with SFSBs)
----------------------------------------------
Key: JBSEAM-4863
URL:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBSEAM-4863
Project: Seam 2
Issue Type: Bug
Affects Versions: 2.2.2.Final
Environment: JBoss AS 5.1.0.GA
Reporter: Daniel Lechner
Assignee: Vaclav Dedik
Labels: conversation, destroy
Fix For: 2.3.0.Final
Attachments: JBSEAM-4863.zip
Original Estimate: 3 days
Remaining Estimate: 3 days
In an example-project, we have 2 Seam components, one POJO and one SFSB. The
POJO-component uses the SFSB-component via Seam-DI (@In). The POJO-component has a method
annotated with @Destroy.
We are using the POJO-component in a (long-running-)conversation. So the POJO-component
as well as the SFSB-component will be created within the conversation.
When the conversation ends and all components will be removed, the @Destroy-methods of
all seam-components are called one after each other. The order, the @Destroy-methods are
called, depend on the hashCode of the seam-name of the components (the component-names are
put into an java.util.HashSet in the method
org.jboss.seam.contexts.ServerConversationContext.getNamesFromSession() - the for-loop of
the method org.jboss.seam.contexts.Contexts.destroy iterates through this HashSet
afterwards).
If the component-names are chosen this way, that the SFSB-component will be removed
before the POJO-component is removed, a memory leak occurs:
1. the SFSB-component is destroyed by seam - the container removes the SFSB (the
@Remove-method of the SFSB is called)
2. the @Destroy-method of the POJO-component is called. But before, Seam-DI creates a
new SFSB-component TestEJB because of the @In-annotation
3. the POJO-component is removed from the conversation (and later by the GC)
4. the SFSB-component's @Remove-method is not called again - the container keeps
the SFSB-instance
An example-code can be found in the forum reference
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: