BTM

detectJdbcVersion may lead to "java.lang.AbstractMethodError"

Details

  • Type: Bug Bug
  • Status: Closed Closed
  • Priority: Major Major
  • Resolution: Fixed
  • Affects Version/s: 1.3.3
  • Fix Version/s: 2.0.0
  • Labels:
    None
  • Environment:
    Java 1.6.0_01 + Oracle JDBC 3 Driver (10.2.0.3)
  • Number of attachments :
    0

Description

Using an old JVM with JDBC3 may lead to java.lang.AbstractMethodError: oracle.jdbc.driver.LogicalConnection.isValid(I)Z.

It prevents pooled to be initialized.

Using JDBC4 (latest Oracle 11g driver) or JVM 1.6.0_20 can workaround this issue.

Activity

Ascending order - Click to sort in descending order
Hide
Permalink
Johann Dupuis added a comment - - edited

Replacing in JdbcPooledConnection.java, line 93:

} catch (Exception ex) {

with

} catch (Throwable th) {

is fixing this issue.

Show
Johann Dupuis added a comment - - edited Replacing in JdbcPooledConnection.java, line 93: } catch (Exception ex) { with } catch (Throwable th) { is fixing this issue.
Hide
Permalink
Ludovic Orban added a comment - - edited

I don't like the idea of catching Throwable. How about patching the detectJdbcVersion() method this way instead?

    private synchronized void detectJdbcVersion(Connection connection) {
        if (jdbcVersionDetected > 0)
            return;

        try {
            isValidMethod = connection.getClass().getMethod("isValid", new Class[]{Integer.TYPE});
            if (Modifier.isAbstract(isValidMethod.getModifiers())) {
                jdbcVersionDetected = 3;
            } else {
                isValidMethod.invoke(connection, new Object[]{new Integer(DETECTION_TIMEOUT)}); // test invoke
                jdbcVersionDetected = 4;
                if (!poolingDataSource.isEnableJdbc4ConnectionTest()) {
                    if (log.isDebugEnabled()) log.debug("dataSource is JDBC4 or newer and supports isValid(), but enableJdbc4ConnectionTest is not set or is false");
                }
            }
        } catch (Exception ex) {
            jdbcVersionDetected = 3;
        }
        if (log.isDebugEnabled()) log.debug("detected JDBC connection class '" + connection.getClass() + "' is version " + jdbcVersionDetected + " type");
    }
Show
Ludovic Orban added a comment - - edited I don't like the idea of catching Throwable. How about patching the detectJdbcVersion() method this way instead? private synchronized void detectJdbcVersion(Connection connection) { if (jdbcVersionDetected > 0) return; try { isValidMethod = connection.getClass().getMethod("isValid", new Class[]{Integer.TYPE}); if (Modifier.isAbstract(isValidMethod.getModifiers())) { jdbcVersionDetected = 3; } else { isValidMethod.invoke(connection, new Object[]{new Integer(DETECTION_TIMEOUT)}); // test invoke jdbcVersionDetected = 4; if (!poolingDataSource.isEnableJdbc4ConnectionTest()) { if (log.isDebugEnabled()) log.debug("dataSource is JDBC4 or newer and supports isValid(), but enableJdbc4ConnectionTest is not set or is false"); } } } catch (Exception ex) { jdbcVersionDetected = 3; } if (log.isDebugEnabled()) log.debug("detected JDBC connection class '" + connection.getClass() + "' is version " + jdbcVersionDetected + " type"); }
Hide
Permalink
Brett Wooldridge added a comment -

Ludovic, I like your proposed change.

Show
Brett Wooldridge added a comment - Ludovic, I like your proposed change.
Hide
Permalink
Brett Wooldridge added a comment -

On second thought, I don't think it does what you think it does. I believe the Modifier.isAbstract() will perform a class-level modifier check, rather than an instance check. In other words, it can detect if a class declares a method abstract, but I don't think it can detect whether a class method is implicitly abstract because it does not implement an interface method. I think we should be able to catch java.lang.AbstractMethodError explicitly (rather than Throwable) to handle this case.

Show
Brett Wooldridge added a comment - On second thought, I don't think it does what you think it does. I believe the Modifier.isAbstract() will perform a class-level modifier check, rather than an instance check. In other words, it can detect if a class declares a method abstract, but I don't think it can detect whether a class method is implicitly abstract because it does not implement an interface method. I think we should be able to catch java.lang.AbstractMethodError explicitly (rather than Throwable) to handle this case.
Hide
Permalink
Ludovic Orban added a comment -

fixed in trunk

Show
Ludovic Orban added a comment - fixed in trunk
Hide
Permalink
Johann Dupuis added a comment -

Works fine with "btm-2.0.0-beta2".

Thank you.

Show
Johann Dupuis added a comment - Works fine with "btm-2.0.0-beta2". Thank you.

People

  • Assignee:
    Ludovic Orban
    Reporter:
    Johann Dupuis
Vote (0)
Watch (0)

Dates

  • Created:
    Updated:
    Resolved: