what is the difference between TransactionManagementType.CONTAINER and TransactionManagementType.BEAN
as Im using TransactionManagementType.CONTAINER in all of my EJBs and when ever the multiple instances of database is used, It throws an error which gets resolved if i change it to TransactionManagementType.BEAN
I want to know what are the advantages and disadvantages and how it gets effected if I change it to TransactionManagementType.BEAN
ERROR:
Error updating database. Cause: java.sql.SQLException: javax.resource.ResourceException:
IJ000457: Unchecked throwable in managedConnectionReconnected() cl=org.jboss.jca.core.
connectionmanager.listener.TxConnectionListener#680f2be0[state=NORMAL managed
connection=org.jboss.jca.adapters.jdbc.local.LocalManagedConnection#7ba33a94 connection
handles=0 lastReturned=1495691675021 lastValidated=1495690817487
lastCheckedOut=1495691675018 trackByTx=false pool=org.jboss.jca.core.connectionmanager.
pool.strategy.OnePool#efd42c4 mcp=SemaphoreConcurrentLinkedQueueManagedConnectionPool
#71656eec[pool=FAQuery] xaResource=LocalXAResourceImpl#4c786e85
[connectionListener=680f2be0 connectionManager=5c3b98bc warned=false
currentXid=null productName=Oracle productVersion=Oracle Database 12c
Enterprise Edition Release 12.1.0.2.0 - 64bit Production
With the Partitioning, OLAP, Advanced Analytics and Real Application Testing options
jndiName=java:/FAQuery] txSync=null]
TransactionManagementType.CONTAINER
You let the container itself manage transactions(container will commit and rollback). You can control behavior of your transactions (more precisely transaction propagation) by annotating methods with #TransactionManagementAttribute and specifying one of the attributes from TransactionAttribute Types.
TransactionManagementType.BEAN
You have to do transaction demarcation (start, commit, rollback) explicitly yourself, by obtaining UserTransaction interface.
#Resource
UserTransaction ut;
public void method(){
ut.begin();
... // your business logic here
ut.commit(); // or ut.rollback();
}
Note that you have to either commit and rollback before you exit the same method which stated the transaction for Stateless and Message Driven Beans, but it is not required for Stateful bean.
Regarding your question, advantage of BMT is that scope of the transaction can be less than scope of the method itself, i.e explicit control of the transaction.
You would most probably use CMT, BMT is required only in some narrow corner cases to support specific business logic.
Another advantage or use case of BMT is if you need to use Extended Persistence Context Type, which can be supported in BMT with Stateful Session Beans.
Regarding your specific problem, without seeing any bean code or error messages, this is probably what is happening: if you have more databases then each database and its corresponding driver must be able to join an existing transaction, otherwise you will get a specific detailed error.
If you use TransactionManagementType.BEAN the bean is required to start a brand new transaction. Which means you are not joining an existing transaction, and each database operations begin and commit independently from each others.
You can achieve the same effect by leaving TransactionManagementType.CONTAINER and annotating your method with REQUIRES_NEW, provide of course you are calling each EJB trough the corresponding proxy/interface.
So it is not correct to put it like BEAN vs CONTAINER, but rather you have to made some design choice and annotate your methods accordingly.
As requested for a method marked with one of the following:
REQUIRES_NEW existing transactions gets suspended, and the method runs under a brand new transaction
REQUIRED is the default behavior, if a transaction exists it is reused by the method, otherwise gets created and the method runs in it
Related
I have a Spring Boot application in which a service is responsible to create a Business Entity. For simplicity, let's consider:
create(Object toCreate) {
validationService.validate(toCreate);
Object created = repository.save(toCreate);
notificationService.notify(created);
}
Business has changed and now I would like the creation to not fail if notification fails.
I therefore wrapped the notify() method in a try-catch block that only logs the error (which is a RuntimeException).
However when tested, a transaction rollback error was thrown, saying the connection was closed. I do not want any rollback, especially since the NotificationService does not modify the database.
How can I tell Spring that any exception happening in the NotificationService is fine and does not require a rollback? I tried annotating the class/method with #Transactional(propagation=NEVER) but got existing transaction found for transaction marked with propagation 'never'
Perhaps refactoring your code would help better than the introduction of more complex transaction handling.
Assuming your #Transactional is on the create() method, we can see that you have:
Pre-persistence business logic
Persistence logic
Post-persistence business logic
It depends on your use-case, but I would not expect pts. 1 & 3 to contain persistence logic. If that is the case, you could extract your persistence logic in its own service that would itself be a transaction, not the parent.
If you have the need for a transaction in those steps, you could also extract them in their own transaction.
Other leads might be:
The default rollback behavior is for runtime unchecked exceptions. You could use checked exceptions to avoid the rollback.
If your notification is separate from persistence and you do not care about the transaction, you could make it an asynchronous call (e.g. with #Async). It would be scheduled outside of the transaction in its own context.
You can use the option norollbackfor of #Transactional so you have to specify an exception class not the service and when an error occurs in notifications try to throw a specifc error which would not cause a rollback.
We are facing an issue in our spring batch application when we are deploying the application on WebSphere.
Example: One class contains parent() method and Second class contains child() method, where child method requires a new transaction. After execution of the methods when transaction is committed the commit routine hangs and nothing happens further.
#Transactional //using current transaction
public void parent(){
child();
}
#Transactional(propagation=REQUIRES_NEW) //creates new transaction
public void child(){
//Database save statements including update, insert and deletes
}
This issue only persists in WebSphere and code works fine on our local machine where we are using tomcat as web container.
WebSphere logs/stacktrace shows that the WebSphere prepared statement keeps on waiting for the response from the database. At the same time update and inserts are locked out on the affected tables i.e. if we run an insert or update query manually on the affected table the query doesn't execute.
We are using Spring JPA for data persistence and Spring’s JpaTransactionManager for transaction management and MSSQLServer database.
Is it that WebSphere does not support creating new transaction from existing transaction?
Yes, the pattern you are describing is supported by WebSphere Application Server. Given that this involved locked entries within the database, you might be running into a difference between the application servers in which transaction isolation level is used by default. In WebSphere Application Server, you get a default of java.sql.Connection.TRANSACTION_REPEATABLE_READ for SQL Server, whereas I think in most other cases you end up with a default of java.sql.Connection.TRANSACTION_READ_COMMITTED (less locking). If the default value is the problem, you can change it on the data source configuration.
If you are using WebSphere Application Server Liberty, then the default isolation level can be configured in server.xml as a property of the dataSource element, like this,
<dataSource isolationLevel="TRANSACTION_READ_COMMITTED" jndiName=...
If you are using WebSphere Application Server traditional, then the default isolation level can be configured as the webSphereDefaultIsolationLevel custom property, which can be set to the numeric value of the isolation level constant on java.sql.Connection (value for TRANSACTION_READ_COMMITTED is 2).
See this linked article for the steps of doing so via the admin console.
Is it possible to disable caching with EntityManager in some jboss config?
I'll explain. I have some final "ear" of our product that is using EntityManager through hibernate (something like this, i an newbie to this) and I need to test some behaviour. The easy way for me is to change(remove, create) state of entities direct in the database. But after i did this, the application remain to find old values for some time. I've read about some jboss cache, that is used for entity-manager.
So, for testing, i want to disable EntityManager cache, but it can not be disabled on application-level, only on jboss-level.
In brief: i need application always to reload actual entity state, because it can be edited in database with come other application. And its impossible to disable caching on application-level(hibernate.xml and other)
PS: jboss 4.2.3, ejb3, hibernate3
The cache you are referring to is probably the PersistenceContext. It cannot be disabled. You can only tweak it's scope. In a Java EE environment, the scope of the persistence context is the transaction per default. So if you need for some changes to take effect immediately, you can extract these changes (including fetching the entities in question) into a separate method and annotate it to require a new transaction:
#TransactionAttribute(TransactionAttributeType.REQUIRES_NEW)
Once the method returns, all changes are committed.
You could also use bean managed transactions, so you can control the commit yourself. For this, annotate your bean with #TransactionManagement( TransactionManagementType.BEAN ) and use UserTransaction:
#Resource
private UserTransaction tx;
...
tx.begin();
//do stuff
tx.commit();
I had a few questions all related to the way an entity manager is created and used in an application with respect to Virtual Private Databases, which is a feature in Oracle DB which enables Row Level Security.
In a session bean, we generally have the entity manager as a member, and its generally injected by the container. How is this entity manager managed by the container - I mean, if we want to implement a Virtual Private Database then we have to make sure that the Virtual Private Database-context remains valid for the entire user session, and we do not have to set this context everytime before we fire a query. (to include more verbiage here : a session bean implements a couple of functions and each of these functions uses the same entity manager; now, it should not be the case that we set the Virtual Private Database everytime in each of these functions which do some DB manipulations).
Further to #1, since the entity manager is cached in the session bean, do we need to explicitly close the entity manager in any scenario? (like we do for JDBC connections?)
Also, I was wondering what should be the use case(or design criteria) for using a JTA or a non-JTA datasource. Is the way we create an entity manager dependant on this?
To add w.r.t the requirement on VPD:
It would be nice if the container managed EM can somehow be made to enforce the VPD per user. Note that EM is injected in here, so there should be a mechanism to set the VPD on the connection(and later retrieve the same connection for 'this' user in 'this' session).
Without an injected EM, i think using a reference to EMF and then setting the properties for the EM can be done. Something like :
((org.eclipse.persistence.internal.jpa.EntityManagerImpl)em.getDelegate()).setProperties
It would be an overkill, if the VPD is set everytime before the query is fired, rather the connection should 'maintain' the VPD context during the user's session and later release the connection (after clearing the VPD) back to the pool.
In a session bean, an injected entity manager is container managed and by default transaction scoped.
This means when you call any method on the session bean and a transaction is started, the persistence context of the entity manager starts. When the transaction is committed or rollbacked it ends. There is thus no scenario in which you have to explicitly close the entity manager.
Furthermore, when there already is a transaction in progress, this is joined by default and when there already is a persistence context attached to said transaction it's propagated instead of a new one being created.
Stateful session beans have another option, and that's the extended persistence context. This one is coupled to the scope of the stateful bean instead of to individual transactions. You still don't have to do any closing yourself here.
Then, you can also inject an EntityManagerFactory (using #PersistenceUnit) and then get an entity manager from it: In that case you'll have an application managed entity manager. In this case you'll have to explicitly close it.
JTA datasources (transactional datasources) are by default used with container managed entity managers. The container takes care of everything here. non-JTA datasources are for situations where you need separate connections to a DB, possibly outside any running transaction, on which you can set auto commit mode, commit, rollback, etc your self.
These two different datasource types can be defined in orm.xml for a persistence unit. If you define a persistence unit with a non-JTA datasource, you typically create an entity manager for it using a factory and then manage everything your self.
Update:
Regarding the Virtual Private Database, what you seem to need here is a user specific connection per entity manager, but the normal way of doing things is coupling a persistence unit to a general data source. I guess what could be needed here is a datasource that's aware of the user's context when a connection is requested.
If you completely bypass the container and even largely bypass the JPA abstraction, you could go directly to Hibernate. It has providers that you can register globally like DriverManagerConnectionProvider and DatasourceConnectionProvider. If you provide your own implementations for these with a setter for the actual connection, you can ask these back from a specific entity manager instance just prior to using it, and then set your own connection in it.
It's doable, but needless to say a bit hacky. Hopefully someone else can give a more 'official' answer. Best would of course if Oracle provided an official plug-in for e.g. EclipseLink to support this. This document hints that it does:
TopLink / EclipseLink : Support filtering data through their
#AdditionalCriteria annotation and XML. This allows an arbitrary JPQL
fragment to be appended to all queries for the entity. The fragment
can contain parameters that can be set through persistence unit or
context properties at runtime. Oracle VPD is also supported, include
Oracle proxy authentication and isolated data.
See also How to use EclipseLink JPA with Oracle Proxy Authentication.
I have mybatis 3.0.4 with mybatis-spring integration 1.0.1 deployed within Fuse (OSGi). I've created a basic database within SQLServer 2008. In Spring I've configured a TransactionAwareDataSourceProxy data source and a DataSourceTransactionManager transaction manager.
Now I've created my own bundle to be deployed within Fuse which inserts some rows into the database. I've told the bundle to use the configured data source and transaction manager. The method which carries out the logic looks like this:
#Transactional(propagation=Propagation.REQUIRED)
public void go(RecsCashContext context) throws ActionException {
When this method throws an exception I can follow Spring through seeing the expected behaviour triggered. This leads me to Springs JtaTransactionManager and doRollBack(..).
So everything looks promising, except that when I look at the database, sure enough it's in an unstable state as previous inserts have not been roll back.
I'm at a loss on this one and I'm struggling to find any information online. Any thoughts?
What kind of exception is being thrown? Unless you tell Spring to explicitly rollback when a particular exception is thrown, it will proceed. By default, Spring's transaction handling only rolls back when an unchecked exception (e.g. RuntimeException) is thrown. In your case, if you're expecting the rollback to occur when ActionException occurs, you're out of luck unless you make the following modification:
#Transactional(rollbackFor={ActionException.class})
public void go(RecsCashContext context) throws ActionException {
More details are in here, specifically in section 10.5.6.1, #Transactional settings
As it turns out Fuse (servicemix) already exposes a transaction manager via an OSGi service within bundle org.apache.aries.transaction.manager_0.2.0.incubating [49]. As a result when I was looking up the transaction manager service, the one exposed by bundle 49 got picked up first.
This was resolved by clearly specifying the transaction manager I was interested in. At the moment I am doing this using the bean-name propery:
<osgi:reference id="transactionManager" bean-name="transactionManager" interface="org.springframework.transaction.PlatformTransactionManager" />
Though this could also be done by using a filter, but preferably we'll just make use of the transaction manager service that's already being expose as opposed to providing our own.