Re: [hibernate-dev] Session and carrying 3rd party state

In my opinion, any attempts to present a custom Session ought to inherently mean presenting a custom SessionFactory. I assume you also present a OgmSessionFactory, so you should have total control over how a Session creation happens. At some point do you think maybe part of the problem is "delegating too much"? Delegation is a great pattern, but it has limits. I realize this is a bit simplistic, but essentially you want the processing to go from OgmSession->Session->OgmSession. Inherently there is going to need to be some level of "circular dependency" here if using delegation (`getSessionOwner()` is in fact a form of circular dependency). Really it comes down to what you want. If it were me, I'd want my Session (OgmSession) being the thing that gets passed to listeners and persisters. Heck your persisters clearly expect to be able to access the OgmSession or we would not be having this conversation :) But that means not using delegating as the basis for OgmSession, instead having OgmSession extend "SessionImpl". SessionImpl is final as I said, so this would mean either: 1) removing final from SessionImpl 2) creating a new `AbstractEventSourceSession` (name pending) that both SessionImpl and OgmSession (etal) can extend from On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 6:46 AM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar(a)hibernate.org&gt;wrote: > 2014-03-31 16:28 GMT+02:00 Steve Ebersole <steve(a)hibernate.org&gt;: > > Wasn't just me that said -1... >> >> My concerns are 2-fold: >> 1) You want ORM to manage and expose "state storage" on Session even >> though it does not use it. >> 2) You want to store state in there that isnt even Session-scoped. >> Rather you have state that is scoped to a flush cycle, or to a >> transaction, etc. >> > > We have needs for storage with different scopes, but we never meant to > store all those at the session level. This discussion is about the > session-scoped storage only; flush cycle and TX scoped storage are > different pairs of shoes. > > >> Really, as I said in the IRC meeting when we discussed this[1], I really >> just want you guys to think through the use cases and flesh them out. Then >> in my opinion we start to see natural places to hook in state storage. For >> example, in the course of that IRC discussion we saw the need to store >> things at the transaction-level become more clear and it seemed to me like >> storing the state related to these transaction-scoped use-cases is just a >> bad idea plain and simple. You keep it relative to the transaction. >> >> To be honest I still have not seen that "fleshed out" discussion of use >> cases, so its hard for me to say how state storage SHOULD be done. But I >> can certainly see ways that it SHOULD NOT be done. >> >> BTW, in looking through the discussion of getSessionOwner() again, I >> still don't agree that was the right solution for what y'all want/need. >> Ultimately the problem is that SessionImpl, not your delegate, gets passed >> into the listeners/persisters/etc. And that happens because SessionImpl >> passes `this` all the time. A simple solution would be to find all the >> places that SessionImpl passes itself (`this`) into the places of >> interest (creating events, calling persisters, etc) and to instead pass the >> delegate via an override-able method that your delegate overriddes. For >> example, we have this currently on SessionImpl: >> >> >> @Override >> public void persistOnFlush(String entityName, Object object, Map >> copiedAlready) { >> firePersistOnFlush( copiedAlready, new PersistEvent( entityName, >> object, this ) ); >> } >> >> but IIUC the following would solve your problems in an even better way: >> >> public EventSource getEventSource() { >> return this; >> } >> >> @Override >> public void persistOnFlush(String entityName, Object object, Map >> copiedAlready) { >> firePersistOnFlush( copiedAlready, new PersistEvent( entityName, >> object, getEventSource() ) ); >> } >> >> >> and then your delegate would override this `getEventSource()` method to >> return itself instead. >> >> The premise here is that ultimately we'd be better served actually >> getting the OgmSession passed along to listeners/persisters. >> > > That's an interesting idea; The problem is though, when creating an > OgmSession, the SessionImpl instance we delegate to has already been > created. So we'd need a setter for passing in the OgmSession as event > source. Or, we'd have to create a sub-class of SessionImpl: > > public class CustomEventSourceSessionImpl extends SessionImpl { > > private SessionImpl delegate; > private EventSource es; > > public CustomEventSourceSessionImpl(SessionImpl delegate, > EventSource es) { ... } > > public EventSource getEventSource() { return es; } > > //all other methods delegate > } > > And in OgmSession: > > public OgmSession(OgmSessionFactory factory, EventSource delegate) { > super( delegate, new CustomEventSourceSessionImpl( delegate, this > ) ); > ... > } > > In the end it this forms a circular dependency between delegator > (OgmSession) and delegate (SessionImpl). Not sure whether that's a good > thing. > > --Gunnar > > > > [1] >> http://transcripts.jboss.org/meeting/irc.freenode.org/hibernate-dev/2014/... >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 7:31 AM, Emmanuel Bernard < >> emmanuel(a)hibernate.org&gt; wrote: >> >>> The thing is, the map approach had a big -1 from Steve hanging on its >>> head :) >>> >>> > On 31 mars 2014, at 12:07, Gunnar Morling <gunnar(a)hibernate.org&gt; >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > 2014-03-20 23:05 GMT+01:00 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org&gt;: >>> >> I took some more time to think about our conversation from 2 IRC >>> meeting ago >>> >> about offering the ability to carry session bound state not related >>> to >>> >> ORM per se. >>> >> Below is a sum and a potential solution. >>> >> If you are short on time, read Goals, then the >>> SessionSessionEventListener >>> >> approach and ignore the rest. >>> >> >>> >> ## Goals >>> >> >>> >> The goal is to be able to carry session bound state for non-ORM >>> projects >>> >> like search and OGM. >>> >> We want to avoid ThreadLocal use, in particular when it cannot be >>> >> protected by a try / catch for proper resource cleaning. >>> >> We want to avoid a structure that would be shared across threads >>> concurrently >>> >> i.e. using ConcurrentHashMap with a Weak reference to the session. >>> >> It needs to be informed of a call to session.clear() >>> >> It needs to be informed of a call to session.close() >>> >> The state needs to be accessed from event listener implementations >>> and custom >>> >> persister / loader implementations i.e. SessionImplementor and maybe >>> >> EventSource? >>> >> >>> >> ## Approaches >>> >> >>> >> I'll discuss the approaches we explored in the meeting and then >>> offer an >>> >> alternative one that I think is pretty interesting and fit better >>> with >>> >> the current Session model. >>> >> >>> >> ### Map >>> >> >>> >> This is essentially sticking a map on SessionImpl and use it to carry >>> >> state. >>> >> The following is a pseudo implementation >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> /** >>> >> * interface implemented by SessionImpl and the like >>> >> */ >>> >> interface SessionCompanion { >>> >> Object getCompanion(String key); >>> >> void addCompanion(String key, Object companion); >>> >> void removeCompanion(String key); >>> >> } >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> /** >>> >> * adds a map to the SessionImpl >>> >> */ >>> >> SessionImpl { >>> >> private Map<String, Object> companions; >>> >> public Object getCompanion(String key) { return >>> companions.get(key); } >>> >> public void addCompanion(String key, Object value) { >>> companions.add(key, companion); } >>> >> public void removeCompanion(String key) { >>> companions.remove(key) } >>> >> } >>> >> >>> >> The persister or event listener would call >>> SessionCompation.*Companion method >>> >> to put and retrieve its state. >>> >> >>> >> There is no clear / close event listener loop and it would need to >>> be added. >>> >> >>> >> ### Delegator >>> >> >>> >> Gunnar and teve discussed an approach where the delegator would be >>> passed to >>> >> the underlying session and be accessible via an `unwrap` method. >>> >> I have not followed the details but this approach has one major >>> flaw: the >>> >> delegator (OgmSession, FullTextSession etc) is not always created >>> and thus >>> >> would not be necessarily available. >>> >> A somewhat similar idea involving passing the session owner has the >>> same >>> >> drawback. And another one described by Gunnar in >>> >> https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/OGM-469 >>> >> >>> >> ### The type-safe map approach >>> >> >>> >> This approach is vaguely similar to the Map approach except that the >>> payload is >>> >> represented and looked up by Class. This has the benefit of not >>> having >>> >> namespace problems and is generally less String-y. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> /** >>> >> * interface implemented by SessionImpl and the like >>> >> */ >>> >> interface SessionCompanion { >>> >> T getCompanion(Class<T> type); >>> >> void addCompanion(Object companion); >>> >> void removeCompanion(Class<?> type) >>> >> >>> >> } >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> SessionImpl { >>> >> //could also use an array or an ArrayList >>> >> private Map<Class<?>, Object> companions; >>> >> public T getCompanion(Class<T> type) { return (T) >>> companions.get(type); } >>> >> public void addCompanion(Object companion) { >>> companions.add(companion.getClass(), type); } >>> >> public void removeCompanion(Class<T> type) { >>> companions.remove(type); } >>> >> } >>> >> >>> >> Like in the Map approach, the persister or custom event listener >>> would interact >>> >> with SessionCompanion. >>> >> There are open issues like what should be done when two objects of >>> the same >>> >> type are added to the same session. >>> >> Likewise the clear / close hook issues need to be addressed. >>> >> >>> >> ### the SessionEventListener approach >>> >> >>> >> I did not know but there is a concept of `SessionEventListener` >>> which can be >>> >> added to a `SessionImplementor`. It has hooks that are addressing >>> most of the >>> >> goals. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> //interface already exists >>> >> interface SessionImplementor { >>> >> public SessionEventListenerManager getEventListenerManager(); >>> >> } >>> >> >>> >> //interface already exists >>> >> public interface SessionEventListenerManager extends >>> SessionEventListener { >>> >> // add this method to be able to retrieve a specific >>> listener holding some state for a 3rd party project >>> >> List<SessionEventListener> getSessionEventListeners(); >>> >> } >>> >> >>> >> OGM or Search would implement a `SessionEventListener` and attach an >>> instance to a session via `Session.addEventListeners()`. >>> >> It would require to add a method to retrieve the list of >>> `SessionEventListener`s attached to a `SessionEventListenerManager`. >>> >> >>> >> List<SessionEventListeners> listeners = >>> sessionImplementor.getSessionEventListenerManager().getEnlistedListeners(); >>> >> OgmSessionEventListener ogmListener = >>> findOrAddOgmListener(sessionImplementor, listeners); >>> >> ogmListener.someStuff(); >>> >> >>> >> ## What about clear and close? >>> >> >>> >> We have a few ways to react to these. >>> >> SessionEventListener is already called back when a flush begins / >>> ends as well as when Session closes. >>> >> We need to either: >>> >> >>> >> - add a clear begins / ends callback >>> >> - have the third party project add a ClearEventListener which would >>> access the SessionEventListeners and do some magic. >>> >> >>> >> The first approach has my preference and would do: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> public interface SessionEventListener { >>> >> [...] >>> >> void clearStart(); >>> >> void clearEnd(); >>> >> } >>> >> >>> >> What do you guys think? The SessionEventListener approach feels more >>> natural. >>> > >>> > Tbh. I feel maintaining the state with a listener is a bit hacky. How >>> would we find "our" listener, I guess it would involve some ugly instanceof >>> check? >>> > >>> > The map based approaches seem preferable to me (I dislike the >>> "companion" naming scheme though). The type-safe map approach is nice, as >>> you say it may cause type collisions though and lead to a proliferation of >>> key types. How about a combined approach which provides one such typesafe >>> container per "client": >>> > >>> > public interface SessionAttributes { >>> > >>> > <T> T get(Class<T> type); >>> > <T> T put(Class<T> type, T value); >>> > <T> T remove(Class<T> type); >>> > } >>> > >>> > And >>> > >>> > public interface SessionImplementor { >>> > ... >>> > SessionAttributes getAttributes(String integratorId); >>> > } >>> > >>> > And in OGM: >>> > >>> > public static final String OGM_COMMON_ATTRIBUTES = >>> "org.hibernate.ogm.attributes.common"; >>> > ... >>> > FooBar fb = >>> session.getAttributes(OGM_COMMON_ATTRIBUTES).get(FooBar.class); >>> > >>> > This avoids collisions of attributes of the same type between >>> different clients such as OGM and Search (there could even be several >>> attribute containers used by one client). The SessionAttributes could be >>> instantiated lazily upon the first getAttributes() call, avoiding any >>> overhead if the functionality is not used. >>> > >>> > The clean-up part (if it is required?) could then be done by an >>> accompanying SessionEventListener. >>> > >>> > --Gunnar >>> > >>> >> >>> >> Emmanuel >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> hibernate-dev mailing list >>> >> hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> hibernate-dev mailing list >>> hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >>> >> >> >