embedded server without persistence creates a server.lock file

[jmesnil]

Hi guys,

I am finally doing some stuff with HornetQ in my new job. Get ready for some dumb questions

When I create an embedded HornetQ server with no persistence & INVM acceptor, it still creates the server.lock file in the journal dir.

fwiw this is the setup code:

        Configuration configuration = new ConfigurationImpl();
        configuration.setPersistenceEnabled(false);
        configuration.setSecurityEnabled(false);
        configuration.getAcceptorConfigurations().add(new TransportConfiguration(InVMAcceptorFactory.class.getName()));


        HornetQServer server = HornetQServers.newHornetQServer(configuration);
        server.start()

I am wondering if this is a bug or not? I was expecting to have no file created at all including the lock file when I disable the persistence.

wdyt? What would happen if I was creating a 2nd embedded server (as unlikely an use case it is)? Would it wait to acquire the lock?

cheers,

jeff

[clebert.suconic]

Hmmm.. that's a bug for sure...

We should fix it...

Do you want to open a JIRA? If you have a fix... feel free to commit it.. you are still a committer :-)

[jmesnil]

Forgot to mention it's on 2.2.5.Final release.

I'll check if it also on the trunk and provide a fix for it if it's still there

cheers

[clebert.suconic]

Trunk is a bit unstable right now.... I'm working on that...

Right now we are doing work on Branch_2_2_EAP and Branch_2_2_AS7....

I'm working on bringing trunk fixed an up to date as we speak. It's all my fault but it's just a lot of work to be done now :-)

[zyz]

Actually, I observe such a behaviour since 2.2.0.

[esarbanis]

Hi Clebert,

I am just starting to contribute to the project working my way from minor to major bugs. I can see that although this thread is relatively old, the issue still exists, so I gave it a try.

From what I can understand there are 2 ways to deal with this:

1) Assign an InVMNodeManager in case of no persistence

2) Assign a different lock file to each server instance

I went with the 1st approach and made a pull request, but if you are more keen to use the 2nd (or any other) feel free to state it in the PR. I would be more than happy to give it another try.