This method name would clash with ServiceComponent
As the real meaning here on this method is just to failover
So I've renamed the method to avoid the clash with my next commit
(I've done this on a separate commit as you may need to redo this
commit from scratch again in other branches instead of lots of clashes on cherry-pick)
When a large message is being diverted, a new copy of the original
message is created and replicated (if there is a backup) to the backup.
In LargeServerMessageImpl.copy(long) it reuse a byte array to copy
message body. It is possible that one block of date is read into
the byte array before the previous read has been replicated,
causing the replicated bytes to corrupt.
If we make a copy of the byte array before replication, the corruption
of data will be avoided.
The JDBCSequentialFile blocks on the writeLock when opening. There is
no need to block here, in fact it may cause issues when opening and
syncing concurrently. Instead an AtomicBoolean is enough to prevent the
file from being reloaded.
Before sending of messages to server 0 begins, the test
should wait until consumer is registered at RemoteQueueBindingImpl
on server 0. Otherwise some messages may not be rebalanced
to server 1.
it doesn't really matter the number of files.. as long as the data is valid.
This type of assertion limits the implementation. it's mocking test with too much intrusion
over the implementation. Hence I'm removing these clauses that will fail eventually.
Add extra configuration to address-settings to be able to
control / enable address/queue deletion by pattern,
rather than a global toggle.
Add support in the reload logic to remove address
and/or queues if the address matches an address setting,
where it is enabled.
When a broken packet arrives at client side it causes decoding error.
Currently artemis doesn't handle it properly. It should catch such
errors and disconnect the underlying connection, logging a proper
warning message
