4:21 p.m.
In the JSR 352 batch specification there are some issues around
transactions with JCA. These issues would mainly be seen with JDBC item
readers/writers.
Here is kind of a thought dump from a sit down I had with the JCA team.
If anyone has any opinions on how this should be handled let's talk it
out. I would imagine this is a fairly important issue as generally
speaking batch jobs will likely be legacy jobs and JDBC is probably
heavily used.
*Batch Transactions with JCA*
*Problem:*
Batch requires that a Transaction.begin() and a Transaction.commit() for
each open, close and chunk processed. This causes connections from JCA
to potentially cross transactional boundaries.
This requires that the JCA CachedConnectionManager (CCM) is enabled
for the resource in question (Jesper)
*Transaction code should be written like:*
Connection c
Transaction.begin()
c = DataSource.getConnection()
c.close()
Transaction.commit()
*Chunk Processing process:*
Transaction.begin()
ItemReader.open()
ItemWriter.open()
Transaction.commit()
repeat until item reader returns null
Transaction.begin()
repeat-on-chunk
ItemReader.readItem()
ItemProcessor.processItem()
ItemWriter.writeItems
Transaction.commit()
Transaction.begin()
ItemReader.close()
ItemWriter.close()
Transaction.commit()
Where seen:
* No errors in 8.1+
* Upstream with the tracking set to true and exception is thrown;
/subsystem=datasources/data-source=ExampleDS:write-attribute(name=tracking,
value=true)
* https://gist.github.com/jamezp/cf39f92913425c83929f
o This shows where the connection was allocated that is crossing
the transaction boundary, and hence killed (Jesper)
Questions:
* Will the tracking attribute be used often?
o The feature is meant to allow people to find where in their code
they are making assumptions that isn't true (Jesper)
+ The corner case is just the "c.close()" call (Jesper)
*Possible Fixes:*
* Leave batch as is. If the tracking attribute is set to true
exceptions will be thrown
o Remember that the underlying connection will be killed (Jesper)
* Add a property to jBeret to use local (fake) transactions. This is
what we currently do and I feel it's just wrong.
* Create a deployment descriptor (or possibly a property that can be
passed when starting the job) to allow different styles for transactions
Example JBoss Way
repeat until item reader returns null
Transaction.begin()
ItemReader.open()
ItemWriter.open()
repeat-on-chunk
ItemReader.readItem()
ItemProcessor.processItem()
ItemWriter.writeItems()
ItemReader.close()
ItemWriter.close()
Transaction.commit()
--
James R. Perkins
JBoss by Red Hat