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

[EJBCLIENT-162] EJB client unnecessary mark a channel/connection as broken if can't read a message #265

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 27, 2017

Conversation

gaol
Copy link
Contributor

@gaol gaol commented May 10, 2017

Jira: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/EJBCLIENT-162
EAP 7.0 Jira: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBEAP-5411
EAP 7.1 Jira: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBEAP-5413 - Verified

This issue does not happen anymore in EAP 7.1 after updating jboss-ejb-client to 4.x, the related errors are removed during the refracting in jboss-ejb-client master branch(4.x).

So there is no corresponding PR for this issue in master branch.

…roken if can't read a message

Do not exclude the node when failed to send invocation
Logs.MAIN.debugf(rsfe, "Retrying invocation %s which failed on node: %s due to:", clientInvocationContext, failedNodeName);
// exclude this failed node, during the retry
clientInvocationContext.markNodeAsExcluded(failedNodeName);
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What customer complained was that "Further EJB invocations are rejected with EJBCLIENT0025". Don't exclude the node in the retry process will prevent that.

@gaol
Copy link
Contributor Author

gaol commented May 11, 2017

@dmlloyd Could you please take a look at this PR? Thank you very much!

@dmlloyd
Copy link
Member

dmlloyd commented Jul 27, 2017

I think we need an upstream (2.x, 3.x) PR for this as well.

@gaol
Copy link
Contributor Author

gaol commented Jul 28, 2017

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants