Glassfish mysteries #3: JMS

Here are all posts of this serie on Glassfish.

This post is about Glassfish and JMS-related problems. Message-passing is a great architectural style whose main strength are (1) scalability (2) loose coupling. The J2EE stack is a great platform to build message-based applications, notably because of the message-driven beans. These are extremely easy to use and relief the developer form consuming message from the JMS queue directly, which most of the time involves some form of thread management. The Glassfish implementation contains unfortunately several bugs.

Embedded broker is buggy

The JMS broker can be configured to be embedded, local or remote. By default it is embedded. Unfortunately, there are many issues with the embedded mode which basically is not robust enough to be used in practice. Always set the broker as local.

Max delivery attempt is not considered

The property EndpointExceptionRedeliveryAttempts specifies how many times the application server will attempt to deliver the JMS message if exceptions occur. The property was not correctly considered in the early releases of Glassfish v2. Fortunately, the bug was fixed in v2ur2.

Consumption from queue hangs if selectors are used

There seem to be a bug when we consume message from the queue and use selectors at the same time. After a while the system hangs and the call to receive() blocks. I unfortunately don’t remember if the broker was configured as embedded or local.

Non-unique delivery of message

We also experienced a strange case where some messages were delivered twice. It seems like the problem was more frequent when load increased. Again, I don’t remember if the broker was configured as embedded or local.

Non-atomic delivery of JMS messages

When a JMS message is sent in a transaction that also performed some database changes, the message may be delivered before the database changes have been committed for real. Considering that this is a typically usage scenario, I know it will sound very weird. It is however a case that we’ve experience several times, and we need to manually add some locks to ensure the message would be processed after the database changes. I’ve posted a long message on concerning this problem, and apparently this should not happen…But I’m positive about the fact that there is a problem somewhere and that the transaction manager sometimes commits the JMS participant before the database participant in the 2 phase commit protocol.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s