Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Error "Unsupported deployment descriptors element message-destination value null" during application deployment #7612

Closed
poikilotherm opened this issue Feb 16, 2021 · 2 comments · Fixed by #7613

Comments

@poikilotherm
Copy link
Contributor

poikilotherm commented Feb 16, 2021

When deploying recent Dataverse versions to Payara, I noticed the following error messages after server start, during the initial application deployment phase:

Unsupported deployment descriptors element message-destination value null

Looking around for similar problems on the internet, I found some old mailing list entries on these log messages regarding JMS.
(First Google results, e. g. 1).

After some investigation, it looks like using the @Resource(name="") syntax is not the best way to go. Sth. about referencing JNDI resources not physically located due to the new mechanism. Whatever - didn't dig deeper to understand every detail.

Looks like changing @Resource(name="") to @Resource(lookup="") might do the trick, but there is manual testing of Ingest needed.

PR forthcoming.

poikilotherm added a commit to poikilotherm/dataverse that referenced this issue Feb 16, 2021
As we produce the JMS topic and factory for Ingest in
`IngestQueueProducer` since Dataverse 5.3, error messages
about unsupported missing message-destination appeared.
This commit fixes the underlying cause by using lookup()
instead of name() for the @resource dependency injection.

Solves IQSS#7612
@landreev
Copy link
Contributor

A silly question perhaps, but was that error message on startup the only negative effect of this? Or was it actually causing any real problems? (Ingest is still working in 5.3, as far as we know...)

@poikilotherm
Copy link
Contributor Author

As far as I can tell, yes, that was the only effect. But as there were a lot of 'em (20-30) and IIRC as warning, I did not want to generate confusion and potential issues for the future...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants