I have a program that uses handler, businessObject and DAO for program execution. Control starts from handler to businessObject and finally to DAO for Database operations.
For example my program does 3 operations: insertEmployee(), updateEmployee() and deleteEmployee() every method being called one after the other from handler. once insertEmployee() called control get back to handler then it calls updateEmployee() again control back to handler then it calls deleteEmployee().
Problem Statement: If my first two methods in dao are successful and control is back to handler and next method it request to dao is deleteEmployee(). Meanwhile it faces some kind of exception in deleteEmployee(). It should be able to rollback the earlier insertEmployee() and updateEmployee() operation also. It should not rollback only deleteEmployee(). It should behave as this program never ran in system.
Can any one point me how to achieve this in spring jdbcTemplate Transaction management.
You should check about transaction propagation, in special: PROPAGATION_REQUIRED.
More info:
http://docs.spring.io/spring/docs/current/spring-framework-reference/html/transaction.html#tx-propagation
Related
I have Spring Boot JPA application.
An application user asks a new transaction from time to time.
I'd like to execute some action on a db connection that is related with the transaction just BEFORE the use can work with that transaction.
"Just BEFORE" means the action has been completed before the first statement of a method annotated with #Transactional is executed.
The action is an execution of a stored procedure with params depend on the current application user.
Application uses work with DB under a technical account.
Thank you in advance
First solution:
Put all in #Transacional annotated method, where your pre-transaction, however this may sound weird, part goes first.
This first part may perform any action and maybe throw en exception if anything goes wrong, thus forcing the transaction to roll back. This may be a #Repository method, a #Query annotated one if needed (like Josh Pospisil suggests) or whatever.
Second solution (I would prefer):
Put 3 method calls in your #RestController's method: first - determining the user, second - performing your pre-transactional action using this user's data, third - the actual #Transacional method doing the job.
I have applied #Transactional in my interface, and inside my serviceImpl, the corresponding method is calling some other methods, one method is reading, another method is writing. Although I have anotated as Transactional, when I am giving concurrent request, my insert method is throwing org.hibernate.exception.LockAcquisitionException: error.
Another problem is, this insert method is a shared method and it performs the insert method like Dao.save(obj) . Dao.save() is a generic method So i can not do anything here. I have to apply something on interface to avoid no lock aquired exception.
Is it possible to tell wait untill lock is aquired? Or retry if transaction is failed? Or lock all the tables until the transaction is completed so that another request can not access the relevent resources?
My hibernate version is 3.x, And database is mysql 5.6
The best way to do this is,
Mark your methods transactional
In your mysql database settings set the transaction isolation level as SERIALIZABLE
I am using Hibernate4 but not Spring. In the application I am developing I want to log a record of every Add, Update, Delete to a separate log table. As it stands at the moment my code does two transactions in sequence, and it works, but I really want to wrap them up into one transaction.
I know Hibernate does not support nested transactions, only in conjunction with Spring framework. I´ve read about savepoints, but they´re not quite the same thing.
Nothing in the standards regarding JPA and JTA specification has support for nested transactions.
What you most likely mean with support by spring is #Transactional annotations on multiple methods in a call hierarchie. What spring does in that situation is to check is there an ongoing transaction if not start a new one.
You might think that the following situation is a nested transaction.
#Transactional
public void method1(){
method2(); // method in another class
}
#Transactional(propagation=REQUIRES_NEW)
public void method2(){
// do something
}
What happens in realitiy is simplified the following. The type of transactionManager1 and transactionManager2 is javax.transaction.TransactionManager
// call of method1 intercepted by spring
transactionManager1.begin();
// invocation of method1
// call of method 2 intercepted by spring (requires new detected)
transactionManager1.suspend();
transactionManager2.begin();
// invocation of method2
// method2 finished
transactionManager2.commit();
transactionManager1.resume();
// method1 finished
transactionManager1.commit();
In words the one transaction is basically on pause. It is important to understand this. Since the transaction of transactionManager2 might not see changes of transactionManager1 depending on the transaction isolation level.
Maybe a little background why I know this. I've written a prototype of distributed transaction management system, allowing to transparently executed methods in a cloud environment (one method gets executed on instance, the next method might be executed somewhere else).
In a Grails app, the default behaviour of service methods is that they are transactional and the transaction is automatically rolled-back if an unchecked exception is thrown. However, in Groovy one is not forced to handle (or rethrow) checked exceptions, so there's a risk that if a service method throws a checked exception, the transaction will not be rolled back. On account of this, it seems advisable to annotate every Grails service class
#Transactional(rollbackFor = Throwable.class)
class MyService {
void writeSomething() {
}
}
Assume I have other methods in MyService, one of which only reads the DB, and the other doesn't touch the DB, are the following annotations correct?
#Transactional(readOnly = true)
void readSomething() {}
// Maybe this should be propagation = Propagation.NOT_SUPPORTED instead?
#Transactional(propagation = Propagation.SUPPORTS)
void dontReadOrWrite() {}
In order to answer this question, I guess you'll need to know what my intention is:
If an exception is thrown from any method and there's a transaction in progress, it will be rolled back. For example, if writeSomething() calls dontReadOrWrite(), and an exception is thrown from the latter, the transaction started by the former will be rolled back. I'm assuming that the rollbackFor class-level attribute is inherited by individual methods unless they explicitly override it.
If there's no transaction in progress, one will not be started for methods like dontReadOrWrite
If no transaction is in progress when readSomething() is called, a read-only transaction will be started. If a read-write transaction is in progress, it will participate in this transaction.
Your code is right as far as it goes: you do want to use the Spring #Transactional annotation on individual methods in your service class to get the granularity you're looking for, you're right that you want SUPPORTS for dontReadOrWrite (NOT_SUPPORTED will suspend an existing transaction, which won't buy you anything based on what you've described and will require your software to spend cycles, so there's pain for no gain), and you're right that you want the default propagation behavior (REQUIRED) for readSomething.
But an important thing to keep in mind with Spring transactional behavior is that Spring implements transaction management by wrapping your class in a proxy that does the appropriate transaction setup, invokes your method, and then does the appropriate transaction tear-down when control returns. And (crucially), this transaction-management code is only invoked when you call the method on the proxy, which doesn't happen if writeSomething() directly calls dontReadOrWrite() as in your first bullet.
If you need different transactional behavior on a method that's called by another method, you've got two choices that I know of if you want to keep using Spring's #Transactional annotations for transaction management:
Move the method being called by the other into a different service class, which will be accessed from your original service class via the Spring proxy.
Leave the method where it is. Declare a member variable in your service class to be of the same type as your service class's interface and make it #Autowired, which will give you a reference to your service class's Spring proxy object. Then when you want to invoke your method with the different transactional behavior, do it on that member variable rather than directly, and the Spring transaction code will fire as you want it to.
Approach #1 is great if the two methods really aren't related anyway, because it solves your problem without confusing whoever ends up maintaining your code, and there's no way to accidentally forget to invoke the transaction-enabled method.
Approach #2 is usually the better option, assuming that your methods are all in the same service for a reason and that you wouldn't really want to split them out. But it's confusing to a maintainer who doesn't understand this wrinkle of Spring transactions, and you have to remember to invoke it that way in each place you call it, so there's a price to it. I'm usually willing to pay that price to not splinter my service classes unnaturally, but as always, it'll depend on your situation.
I think that what you're looking for is more granular transaction management, and using the #Transactional annotation is the right direction for that. That said, there is a Grails Transaction Handling Plugin that can give you the behavior that you're looking for. The caveat is that you will need to wrap your service method calls in a DomainClass.withTransaction closure and supply the non-standard behavior that you're looking for as a parameter map to the withTransaction() method.
As a note, on the backend this is doing exactly what you're talking about above by using the #Transactional annotation to change the behavior of the transaction at runtime. The plugin documentation is excellent, so I don't think you'll find yourself without sufficient guidance.
Hope this is what you're looking for.
Just a little background , I'm a new developer who has recently taken over a major project after the senior developer left the company before I could develop a full understanding of how he structured this. I'll try to explain my issue the best I can.
This application creates several MessageListner threads to read objects from JMS queues. Once the object is received the data is manipulated based on some business logic and then mapped to a persistence object to be saved to an oracle database using a hibernate EntityManager.
Up until a few weeks ago there hasn't been any major issues with this configuration in the last year or so since I joined the project. But for one of the queues (the issue is isolated to this particular queue), the spring managed bean that processes the received object hangs at the method below. My debugging has led me to conclude that it has completed everything within the method but hangs upon completion. After weeks of trying to resolve this I'm at end of my rope with this issue. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated.
Since each MessageListner gets its own processor, this hanging method only affects the incoming data on one queue.
#Transactional(propagation = Propagation.REQUIRES_NEW , timeout = 180)
public void update(UserRelatedData userData, User user,Company company,...)
{
...
....
//business logic performed on user object
....
......
entityMgr.persist(user);
//business logic performed on userData object
...
....
entityMgr.persist(userData);
...
....
entityMgr.flush();
}
I inserted debug statements just to walk through the method and it completes everything including entityMgr.flush.().
REQUIRES_NEW may hang in test context because the transaction manager used in unit testing doesn't support nested transactions...
From the Javadoc of JpaTransactionManager:
* <p>This transaction manager supports nested transactions via JDBC 3.0 Savepoints.
* The {#link #setNestedTransactionAllowed "nestedTransactionAllowed"} flag defaults
* to {#code false} though, since nested transactions will just apply to the JDBC
* Connection, not to the JPA EntityManager and its cached entity objects and related
* context. You can manually set the flag to {#code true} if you want to use nested
* transactions for JDBC access code which participates in JPA transactions (provided
* that your JDBC driver supports Savepoints). <i>Note that JPA itself does not support
* nested transactions! Hence, do not expect JPA access code to semantically
* participate in a nested transaction.</i>
So clearly if you don't call (#Java config) or set the equivalent flag in your XML config:
txManager.setNestedTransactionAllowed(true);
or if your driver doesn't support Savepoints, it's "normal" to get problem with REQUIRES_NEW...
(Some may prefer an exception "nested transactions not supported")
This kind of problems can show up when underlying database has locks from uncommitted changes.
What I would suspect is some other code made inserts/deletes on userData table(s) outside transaction or in a transaction which takes very long time to execute since it's a batch job or similar. You should analyze all the code referring to these tables and look for missing #Transactional.
Beside this answer, you may also check for the isolation level of your transaction — perhaps it's too restrictive.
Does the update() method hang forever, or does it throw an exception when the timeout elapses?
Unfortunately I have the same problem with Propagation.REQUIRES_NEW. Removing it resolves the problem. The debugger shows me that the commit method is hanging (invoked from #Transactional aspect implementation).
The problem appears only in the test spring context, when the application is deployed to the application server it works fine.