Thread: [Proxool-developer] Re: [Proxool-user] warning messages
UNMAINTAINED!
Brought to you by:
billhorsman
From: Bill H. <bi...@lo...> - 2004-02-04 14:43:56
|
Hi Dave, On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 21:28, dav...@fe... wrote: > We've been using Proxool in production for over a year now. That's good. Is that a public web site? > I just started noticing this error message in our logs: > 2592 [http8080-Processor25] WARN proxool.pwdds - 000017 (01/03/00) - > #3 registered a statement as closed which wasn't known to be open. That could happen if you close a statement twice. If that is the case then the only consequence is a WARN log event, but I guess it would be a good idea not to close it twice. Is it possible that is the problem? > Also, I just upgraded from 7.x to 8.3 and Im getting these error > messages now after 30 seconds or so of inactivity: > > 307112 [Shutdown Hook] ERROR proxool.ShutdownHook - Problem calling > "get cause" on IllegalStateException. That message appears during shutdown. We need to make it a less alarming debug message. > org.logicalcobwebs.proxool.ShutdownHook.run(ShutdownHook.java:99) > at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:536) But this line suggests to me (quite strongly) that the JVM is shutting down. The only way that I can think of for the ShutdownHook.run method to be called is by the JVM. What JVM are you using? Do you have any other evidence that might suggest this is happening? Do you see log events for Proxool restarting after this shutdown activity? - Bill |
From: Michael H. <mh...@ni...> - 2004-04-22 19:30:03
|
Hi there...I'm getting the same errors, and they seem to be correct. Using 0.8.3. Now as far as I've read, you are now allowed to remove shutdown hooks after a shutdown has been initiated. Yet this is exactly what proxool is trying to do. Looks like a bug to me. ProxoolFacade should be refactored to not remove any shutdown hooks when called from the shutdown hook itself. I'm surprised nobody else has seen this...am I missing something? =0D /** * Remove all connection pools without delay * @see ProxoolFacade#removeAllConnectionPools */ public void run() { LOG.debug("Running ShutdownHook"); Thread.currentThread().setName("Shutdown Hook"); ProxoolFacade.shutdown(0); } =0D WHICH CALLS... =0D /** * Removes all connection pools. Kills all the connections. Resets everything. * @param finalizer used to identify who is causing the pools to be removed (helps logging) * @param delay the time to wait for connections to become inactive before killing it (milliseconds) */ protected static void shutdown(String finalizer, int delay) { =0D ConnectionPool[] cps =3D ConnectionPoolManager.getInstance().getConnectionPools(); for (int i =3D 0; i < cps.length; i++) { removeConnectionPool(finalizer, cps[i], delay); } =0D // If a shutdown hook was registered then remove it try { if (shutdownHook !=3D null) { ShutdownHook.remove(shutdownHook); } } catch (Throwable t) { if (LOG.isDebugEnabled()) { LOG.debug("Unanticipated error during removal of ShutdownHook. Ignoring it.", t); } } } =0D =0D --=0D Michael Hoefer Architect Software Engineering Niku Corporation 305 Main Street Redwood City, CA 94063 Tel: 650.298.5916 Fax: 650.298.5946 Web: www.niku.com =0D CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message and or= attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is= addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any= review, retransmission, dissemination, copying, or other use of this= information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is= prohibited. If you received this e-mail or its attachments in error,= please contact the sender and delete the material from any system and= destroy any copies. |
From: Bill H. <bi...@lo...> - 2004-04-22 19:39:18
|
Michael, On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 20:26, Michael Hoefer wrote: > Now as far as I've read, you are now allowed to remove shutdown hooks > after a shutdown has been initiated. I think you meant "/not/ allowed"? > ProxoolFacade should be refactored to not remove any shutdown hooks > when called from the shutdown hook itself. I'm surprised nobody else > has seen this...am I missing something? Nope. It's a known problem. The latest code in CVS copes with it, albeit in a clumsy way. It still tries to remove the shutdownHook but it spots an IllegalStateException and silently ignores it. Perhaps we could do that in a smarter way. - Bill |