On 12/06/2013 04:45 PM, Scott Marlow wrote:
I think this is an excellent question, my preference is to fail-fast
JTA 1.1 spec description of Transaction.setRollbackOnly():
public void setRollbackOnly() throws IllegalStateException, SystemException
Modify the transaction associated with the target object such that the
only possible outcome of the transaction is to roll back the transaction.
From an EJB point of view, the EJB container will eventually notice
that the transaction is marked for rollback only when the EJB bean
invocation completes but its not clear (to me) what this means at the
Might be worth asking the JBossTS team, this question.
I believe that a future EE or JPA expert group will discuss whether
applications can expect a transaction to fail-fast in the JPA
persistence provider. The discussion about this came up as part of a
TCK issue (CTS-182 related whatever that is ;)
I'm in favor of fail-fast as soon as possible, so that the application
doesn't spend (potentially), hours before attempting to commit the JTA
transaction, only to then realize that it is marked rollback only. This
doesn't seem that much different than detecting that the active JTA
transaction has timed out.
On 12/06/2013 03:38 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> The bigger question is whether we care. Is there really a benefit to
> continuing work when a transaction is marked for rollback only?
> On Fri 06 Dec 2013 02:36:38 PM CST, Gail Badner wrote:
>> Hi Steve,
>> Looking at the Javadoc for
javax.transaction.Transaction.registerSynchronization(Synchronization sync), I see:
>> Throws: RollbackException - Thrown to indicate that the transaction has been
marked for rollback only.
>> That would make it a JTA spec requirement.
>> More feedback coming...
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Steve Ebersole" <steve(a)hibernate.org>
>>> To: "hibernate-dev" <hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
>>> Sent: Friday, December 6, 2013 10:07:22 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [hibernate-dev] JdbcSession proposal
>>> So I'll get the ball rolling :) Here is one thing in particular I was
>>> hoping to start a discussion on...
>>> For JTA transactions we currently have a lot of complex logic to manage
>>> who "drives" the transaction flow into Hibernate (in terms of
>>> reacting to the completion). There are potentially 2 drivers:
>>> 1) A JTA Synchronization registered with the JTA system
>>> 2) The org.hibernate.Transaction instance
>>> A lot of the complexity in our current code comes from the fact that we
>>> have a lot of attempting to handle cases in which the JTA
>>> Synchronization cannot be registered. So one of the simplifications I
>>> am wanting to make here is to say that the driver will always be the
>>> JTA Synchronization. So I am trying to determine how "actual"
>>> cases where the "JTA Synchronization cannot be registered" are.
>>> The only one that I am aware of IIRC is that JTA Synchronization cannot
>>> be registered on transactions that are marked for rollback-only. I
>>> cannot remember though if that was a specific provider (JBossTS?) or a
>>> JTA/JTS spec requirement.
>>> So the proposal I have is that for JTA cases we always register the JTA
>>> Synchronization and allow that to drive the "before/after
>>> callbacks (the org.hibernate.Transaction would still potentially manage
>>> actually calling commit/rollback on the
>>> TransactionManager/UserTransaction). In short, does any one see
>>> problems with this approach?
>>> On Wed 04 Dec 2013 11:27:10 AM CST, Steve Ebersole wrote:
>>>> I found a few spare minutes to work on this a little and move it into
>>>> the next stage with some actual interfaces, impls and usages to help
>>>> illustrate some of the proposed concepts.
>>>> The README.md is very up-to-date and detailed. Would be good to get
>>>> input from others.
>>>> P.S. I probably dislike the *Inflow naming more than you do :)
>>> hibernate-dev mailing list
> hibernate-dev mailing list
hibernate-dev mailing list