sure, though I was thinking in terms of storing the stateful sync
directly into the registry, not separating out the state first. Your api
proposal made that storage a side effect of the registration call, but
with the javax.transaction api it's an additional call, roughly
tsr.registerSync(statefulThing);
tsr.put(org.hibernate.specialkey, statefulThing);
less elegant, but more flexible in that you can stick things other than
Synchronizations in there too if you ever need to.
Direct use in a JDBC transaction would need a dummy
javax.transaction.TransactionSynchronizationRegistry API impl I guess,
which does seem rather silly if you already got an spi to avoid that,
but OTOH would not require interface changes.
Ultimately you need a tx context to tie it back to though, since the
underlying map is per-tx. IIRC in the narayana impl the TSR actually
delegates to the tx object, which is where the map storage resides.
Adding the TSR to the JTA spec api was kind of a kludge to avoid
interfaces changes in the days before defender methods (or whatever they
would up being called). Most of the TSR methods logically belong to
Transaction or TransactionManager. If you're keeping map put/get
semantics decoupled from registerSync semantics, then there is no
requirement for them to belong on the SynchronizationRegistry rather
than some other api.
Jonathan.
On 25/10/17 16:02, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
Hi Jonathan!
So I have multiple options, but fundamentally I have an ORM
SynchronizationRegistry today. We could either follow the example of
the javax.transaction API in evolving the ORM SPI, or apparently I
could explore making our Synchronization stateless and store the state
in this other map instead, or maybe I try refactor it all to stick to
the standard APIs - however I wonder if it will still work for a JDBC
transaction.
Either way I'll take the fact that the standard API exposes such a
functionality as a sign that this could be sensible to expose.
Thanks,
Sanne
On 25 October 2017 at 15:37, Jonathan Halliday
<jonathan.halliday(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> The javax.transaction version of that interface already functions as a
> per-transaction hashmap, with put/get operations available. If you can use
> it directly, then just pick a suitable lookup key - FQCN or even the sync
> impl .class itself, since the key is Object type. If not then at least
> retain the method signatures and just delegate them down through the spi.
>
>
https://docs.oracle.com/javaee/5/api/javax/transaction/TransactionSynchro...
>
> Jonathan.
>
>
> On 25/10/17 14:32, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>>
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>> do you think it would be sensible for me to explore introducing some
>> kind of synchronization lookup method on
>> org.hibernate.resource.transaction.spi.SynchronizationRegistry ?
>>
>> Today it only exposes a `registerSynchronization` method, which we use
>> extensively, but then we also have quite some complexity in the Search
>> code caused by the fact that we can't look the synchronizations up in
>> a later phase.
>> Essentially our Synchronization is stateful and we need to update it
>> later.
>>
>> I'd love to propose a change for ORM6 so allow registering such things
>> under some kind of id (a string?) so that one can look them back.
>>
>> current SPI:
>>
>> public void registerSynchronization(Synchronization synchronization)
>>
>> temptative proposal (didn't try it yet..):
>>
>> public void registerSynchronization(String id, Synchronization
>> synchronization);
>>
>> public void Synchronization getSynchronization(String id);
>>
>>
>> does it sound reasonable in principle?
>>
>> This would imply other users should make up an id unique for their use
>> case. Alternatively I could live with a Class used as an id, or we
>> could have the new methods in addition to the existing method for
>> people not interested in looking things up.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Sanne
>> _______________________________________________
>> hibernate-dev mailing list
>> hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
>>
>
> --
> Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903
> Directors: Michael Cunningham, Michael ("Mike") O'Neill, Eric Shander
--
Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903
Directors: Michael Cunningham, Michael ("Mike") O'Neill, Eric Shander