Thanks for following up on is. If you are able to narrow this down, it would be much appreciated. I know threading issues can be hard to reproduce, especially when other things take your attention away.
I'll try and take a look again at some of the threading code to see if I can find any obvious issues. -Jim On 10/29/08, mkeenan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > semog wrote: >> >> Thanks. A helpful bit of information is a comparison of NMS 1.1 to NMS >> 1.0, >> since there was some major re-work done on the threading code between the >> two versions. Would you be able to test these different configurations? >> > > I don't think I can do a apples-to-apples comparison because 1.0 was not > thread safe due to the sessions collection not being synchronized. To work > around this issue, back when we used the NMS 1.0 library we used a separate > connection/session for each consumer. Although this is a slight abuse of > resources we have a low number of consumers and it was working fine. > > When we switched to NMS 1.1 (primary motivation was the thread safety) I > altered the configuration to share the connection. For testing, I might > switch it back to one-connection-per-consumer and see if that changes the > behavior we're observing. > > It might be a week or two before I can spend significant time on this due to > other priorities. > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/thread-deadlock-issue-in-NMS-tp20180687p20227395.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
