1 Reply Latest reply on Jul 5, 2010 6:45 PM by Ron Sigal

    JMREM-821 Included in 2.2.3 SP1 ???

    Mike Miller Newbie

      Can someone tell me if https://jira.jboss.org/browse/JBREM-821 is included in 2.2.3 SP1?   Reading JIRA it is hard to tell because it says fixed in 2.4.0.Beta1 (Pinto) but I think 2.2.3 SP1 came out after the dates mentioned in the defect.

       

      I tried browsing the source from the anonymous SVN link but that doesn't provide the history of changes for the source file and I didn't see specific comments in the code referencing the defect number.

       

      We are encountered what may be consider some load-related issues and wanted to see if we can eliminate this as a possible cause by virtue of the defect being in 2.2.3 SP1.

       

      Thanks for the assistance!

        • 1. Re: JMREM-821 Included in 2.2.3 SP1 ???
          Ron Sigal Master

          Hi Mike,

           

          Re-reading the JIRA issue, it looks like the code changes were in response to Tim Fox's concerns about Remoting's  shutdown behavior, but the problem itself was solved by configuration: "After increasing the client pool size I'm not getting these exceptions  any more."

           

          As for whether the code changes are included in Remoting release 2.2.3.SP1, the answer is "no."  Remoting 2 has two branches that contribute releases to currently supported versions of the Enterprise Application Platform (EAP).  Branch 2.2 (http://svn.jboss.org/repos/jbossremoting/remoting2/branches/2.2) contributes releases 2.2.x to EAP 4.2/4.3, and branch 2.x (https://svn.jboss.org/repos/jbossremoting/remoting2/branches/2.x) contributes release 2.4/2.5 to EAP 5.x.  These code bases diverged years ago, and, though I often apply a particular fix to both branches, they are distinct.  In particular, the changes referred to in JBREM-821 were made to branch 2.x, but do not exist on branch 2.2.

           

          By the way, if you look at the "Subversion Commits" tab on JBREM-821, you'll see that all of the commits were to branch 2.x.

           

          -Ron