I'm working with spring declarative approach to rollback transaction on any exceptions with in the method. This method had multiple DAO calls[1,2,3..] and those needs to be maintained in a single transaction. So i'm trying to acheive if any exceptions comes in DAO call[3], then spring has to rollback preceeding DAO calls. i.e[1,2]
#Transactional(propagation = Propagation.REQUIRES_NEW, readOnly = true,rollbackFor=java.lang.Throwable.class)
public void processWorkflowActionsInOneTransaction(...) throws Exception {
// DAO call 1 here....
// DAO call 2 here....
// DAO call 3 here....[throw exception]
}
The above configuration created a single transaction for the mentioned method, but it is not triggered rollback after exception. I have attached spring logs for the better understanding. Please help me if any one had a similar issue.
Spring logs
Related
I am trying to understand a project which involves spring's declarative transactional annotation. The body of the function is not making any JDBC calls or calling JPA repository methods. All it is doing is call some third party API and transform it's results, it's not even saving the response in the database. So no database interactions at all.
My question is that is it worth using #Transactional annotation on this method? Because as per my understanding #Transactional only helps in maintaining consistency in databases.
The #Transactional annotation defines the scope of a single database transaction - all it does is it begins the transaction and either commit it or rollback. It allows to manage transaction declarative way rather than do it programatically every time.
It looks something like this:
UserTransaction utx = entityManager.getTransaction();
try {
utx.begin();
// your method invocation here
utx.commit();
} catch(RuntimeException ex) {
utx.rollback();
throw ex;
}
By making method #Transactional when there is no database calls you only make its performance worse as redundant steps have to take place when not necessary.
I'm working on a bunch of legacy code written by people before me and I'm confused about a particular kind of setup and wonder if this has ever worked to begin with.
There is a managed bean in spring that has a transactional method.
#Transactional(propagation = Propagation.REQUIRES_NEW, rollbackFor = Throwable.class)
public boolean updateDraftAndLivePublicationUsingFastDocumentsOfMySite(List<FastDocumentLite> fastDocumentLites, Long mySiteId) throws Exception { ... }
Now inside that method I find new instantiations calling update methods fe:
boolean firstFeed = new MySiteIdUpdate(publishing, siteDao, siteDomainService).update(siteId, fastDocumentLites.get(0).getMySiteId());
From my understanding on IOC this new class isn't managed by spring , it's just a variable in the bean. Now going further inside the update method you see another service gets called.
#Transactional(propagation=Propagation.REQUIRED, rollbackFor=Throwable.class)
public void activateSubdomainForSite(Long siteId, boolean activationOfSite)
So if there is a transaction open it should be propagated into this service. But here is what I don't get if that MySiteIdUpdate object isn't managed by spring does the first transaction move forward to the activateSubdomainForSite method ?? Or is another transaction being opened here. I looked in the logs and I believe it to be the latter but I rather ask the experts for a second oppinion before I proclame this legacy code to be complete rubbish to the project lead. I'm suffering with a StaleStateException somewhere further down the road and I'm hoping this has anything to do with it.
I think the code is correct, and the second #Transactional should reuse the existing transaction.
Because:
1) Spring Transaction handling is done either by Proxies or by AspectJ advices. If it is done by Proxies then it is required that MySiteIdUpdate invoke an instance that is injected (this is what you did). If you use AspectJ, then it should work anyway.
2) The association Transactions to the code that use is done by the Thread, this mean, as long as you "are" in the thread which started the transaction you can use it. (you do not start an new thread, so it should work)
An other way to explain: It is perfect legal when you have some method in your call hierarchy that does not belong to an spring bean. This should not make the transaction handling fail.
I use spring 3.2 and Hibernate 4 in my project. When i query table i get a "No Session found for current thread" message. I try to use #Transactional annotation(it get success) but i don't want to put #Transactional to every service implementation.
Is there an another way?
In other words "How can i do a simple "insert" operation without using #Transaction?"
Thx...
You should not have #Transactional on you DAO methods, in fact you should never be accessing your DAO methods directly, you should be using an #Service. A service will use zero or more DAO classes to perform operations, only after all operations are completed will the transaction be committed.
#Repository
public class CustomerDao() {
// dao methods here, they are not transactional but will be run within a sevice transaction
}
#Service
#Transactional
public class CustomerService() {
private final CustomerDao customerDao;
#Autowired
public CustomerService(CustomerDao customerDao) {
this.customerDao = customerDao;
}
//service methods here (they are all transactional because we have annotated the class)
}
#Transactional is used for making a java code call in transaction so that in case any exception occurred during the process then all database changes will be rolled back. In ideal scenario every service which you think should be independent should have #Transactional annotation. Hibernate also want each database calls in transaction thats why they have implemented in such a way that Transaction will be required for each database query to be successful. I am not sure why you wanted your service to be out of transaction still they would like to fire database calls.
I am fairly new to Spring and transactions. I am sure this question has been asked before, but I still cannot figure the correct way to go about it.
I am using Spring and hibernate. I have a service method that goes like this:
#Transactional
public void processPendingReport(Report report) {
try {
// Do processing stuff, update report object state
reportDAO.save(report);
} catch (Exception e) {
reportDAO.markReportAsFailed(report);
}
}
If a RuntimeException occurs during processing, a "Transaction marked as rollbackOnly" RollbackException will be thrown, having as a result that the report will not be marked as failed (although I would like it to be).
I have tried using #Transactional(noRollbackFor=Exception.class), but still get the same issue.. Any suggestions? Could it be a configuration issue?
If a database exception (e.g. constraint violation) occurs in reportDAO.save() or reportDAO.markReportAsFailed() the transaction will be rolled back on the database level no matter what you are doing on the application level.
You can still mark the report as failed if reportDao.save() fails when you create a new transaction for reportDAO.markReportAsFailed(). Since ReportDAO is annotated #Transactional just remove the #Transactional annotation from the service method. You could also change the reportDAO.save() implementation to use a database function or stored procedure that wraps the insert statement and catches any exceptions on the database level.
HTH.
I am using Spring 3, JPA + Hibernate for a CMS application. In that application I have a service class method which is annotated with #Transactional Annotation with rollBack property. Inside that method I am inserting data (ie entity classes) to a table using a loop. For each iteration of the loop entity classes has to be saved to the database. But it is not happening. The commit only happens when the execution of the loop has completed and exits from the method. Then it commits and saves all at once. But I need to read data once it gets inserted into the database before committing in this case. I tried with the ISOLATION LEVEL to read uncommitted but it didn't supported since I am using the default JPADialect. Also tried to add the hibernate implementation of jpaDialect but still it didn't worked. Please help with a workaround for this problem. One more thing, is there any way using propagation required method.
You are right, this is what I stands for in acid. Because the transactions are working in isolation, other transactions cannot see them before they are committed. But playing with isolation levels is a bad practice. I would rather advice you to run each and every iteration in a separate transaction with start and commit inside.
This is a bit tricky in Spring, but here is an example:
public void batch() {
for(...) {
insert(...)
}
}
//necessarily in a different class!
#Transactional
public void insert() {
}
Note that batch() is not annotated with #Transactional and insert() has to be in a different class (Spring service). Too long to comment, but that's life. If you don't like it, you can use TransactionTemplate manually.
remove the transactional annoation on the the method with loop.
In the loop call a separate method to perform the save, make that method transactional
You either need to go with programmatic transactions (Spring's TransactionTemplate or PlatformTransactionManager are the classes to look at, see Spring Doc for programmatic transactions, or you can call another transactional method from within your loop where the transaction is marked with Propagation.REQUIRES_NEW, meaning each call of that method is executed in its own transaction, see here. I think that the second approach requires you to define the REQUIRES_NEW method on a different Spring bean because of the AOP-Proxy. You can also omit the REQUIRES_NEW if the loop is not executed within a transaction.