[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [eclipselink-users] Cache Coordination issue
|
You could send with your application message the expected version of
entity "process", then if version you see in new server is older, you
refresh it first or idle a little giving time to the JMS based cache
coordination to receive the update. It's all about synchronous or
asynchronous propagation. JMS based cache coordination is normally
asynchronous, so default behavior you see is normal.
-----Original Message-----
From: eclipselink-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:eclipselink-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of cmathrusse
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 8:44 PM
To: eclipselink-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [eclipselink-users] Cache Coordination issue
I'm running EclipseLink with our JEE application and deploying to a
GlassFish
cluster. I've enabled Cache Coordination to keep the instances in sync
utilizing a JMS Topic. Our application is an event driven model and
utilizes
JMS heavily. Each state change results in a message being produced on a
Jms
queue and a we have different MDB's to consume the messages based upon
their
state. I've run into a situation where a process (entity named process)
was
created on server 1, processing then resumed on server 2, and attempted
to
complete on server 1. state changes (PENDING, PROCESSING, APPROVED).
The issue that I ran into was processing began on server 1, migrated to
server 2, and tried to complete on server 1 and but saw the process in a
state of PENDING while the process was actually in a state of APPROVED.
I
know that the coordination is working between the two instances as I
have
tested this through the UI and have seen the updates occur. I've also
seen
the EclipseLink log messages pertaining to message consumption so I know
that the updates are flowing between the two instances.
So is this simply a case where the message that my application was
processing got consumed prior to the coordination message that
Eclipselink
produced? I've since taken these objects out of the shared cache to
prevent
this issue from arising again. Is this my best strategy or is there
something else that I am overlooking?
Thanks for the help...
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Cache-Coordination-issue-tp24365342p24365342.html
Sent from the EclipseLink - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
eclipselink-users mailing list
eclipselink-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-users
