<div dir="ltr">Hey Michael,<div><br></div><div>Yea, you can reproduce both items by attempting to declare a consumer on a non-existent queue twice in a row. The first invocation closes the channel and throws an IOException. The second invocation throws an AlreadyClosedException, though the hardError and initiatedByApplication flags don't match those from the initial failure.</div>
<div><br></div><div>- jonathan</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Michael Klishin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mklishin@gopivotal.com" target="_blank">mklishin@gopivotal.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On oct 16, 2013, at 1:24 a.m., Jonathan Halterman <<a href="mailto:jhalterman@gmail.com">jhalterman@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> I noticed that AlreadyClosedException always sets hardError and initiatedByApplication to true, even if the error was not hard (only the channel was closed) and the channel was not closed by the application. This makes it more difficult to properly recover a closed resource if I can't easily determine which resource was closed and why. Could this be fixed?<br>
<br>
</div>Jonathan,<br>
<br>
This indeed sounds like a bug.<br>
<br>
How can we reproduce it? Simply attempt an operation on a closed channel?<br>
Does it matter how exactly the channel was closed?<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
MK<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>