[jboss-dev-forums] [Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Failover analysis

[ovidiu.feodorov@jboss.com]

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#3999282

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3999282