Service start should be quick and non-blocking or call async and run in a different thread and signal completion when done. Generally speaking. 

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 5:30 PM Stuart Douglas <> wrote:
In that case you should probably move the rest call out of the service start, and have it processed by a separate thread.

Its probably not great having server start dependent on an external service being up anyway.


On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Gytis Trikleris <> wrote:
Yes it does get processed. But because at the moment call is made from service's start method, the service isn't started until the request is processed. As a result Arquillian test fails because app server doesn't start fast enough.

On 14/12/2016 20:49, Brian Stansberry wrote:

OK. I should probably shut up and defer to Stuart anyway. :)

I say that because looking at his commit you linked, it looks like what it does is it starts queuing up requests during boot and then when it gets the ControlledProcessStateService RUNNING notification it opens the gate and the queued requests get handled (as do new ones of course.)

So that means you shouldn’t have a problematic race if you also use the ControlledProcessStateService RUNNING notification. Your request will either get there before the gate opens and be queued momentarily before being processed, or it will get there after the gate opens and be processed. Either way it gets processed and the client is none the wiser.

On Dec 14, 2016, at 1:33 PM, Gytis Trikleris <> wrote:

In this particular test case both coordinator and participants are on the same server. But they can also be running on different servers. Participant just contacts coordinator via URL provided wherever it is located.

On 14/12/2016 18:19, Brian Stansberry wrote:

This can’t be done internally? Using an HTTP to communicate between aspects of the server seems yuck.

On Dec 14, 2016, at 2:58 AM, Gytis Trikleris <> wrote:

I need to load REST-AT participants from the crash recovery store and notify REST-AT coordinator (via REST API) of their URLs. This doesn't have to be done on the server start, but until it's done REST-AT coordinator recovery will be printing warnings because it won't be able to contact participants. So the sooner it's done the better, hence my question about a listener which could be invoked once the server completed boot-up.


On 13/12/2016 23:45, Stuart Douglas wrote:

Why do you need to make a rest call while startup is taking place?


On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Gytis Trikleris <> wrote:

Is there a way to make sure I'm making the service call not too early?

Also, ControlledProcessStateService methods which are used in that

commit are deprecated. That's why I wasn't sure if it's OK for me to use


On 13/12/2016 22:34, Brian Stansberry wrote:

That commit you linked shows the mechanism for getting a notification of process state changes (inject ControlledProcessStateService and register a property change listener.)

But, that commit is opening up the listener when it gets the notification, so if you listen for the same notification and make a call it’s going to be racy.

On Dec 13, 2016, at 3:26 PM, Gytis Trikleris <> wrote:


I'm wondering if there is a way to register a listener which would be

invoked when server status has changed. More specifically when

application server completed start-up.

The reason for that is that after [1] commit was introduced our rest

transaction tests started to fail. The cause seems to be rest service

call during the start of one of our services. That call doesn't

necessarily have to be executed during the service start. However, the

sooner it's done the better and if it would be possible to register some

sort of callback to be invoked once start-up was done, that would be great.





wildfly-dev mailing list


wildfly-dev mailing list


wildfly-dev mailing list