9:49 a.m.
On 07/19/2016 04:17 AM, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
On Mon 2016-07-18 12:20, Scott Marlow wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> On 07/18/2016 09:24 AM, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
>> I'm lost.
>>
>> What is the expected code a developer will write ?
>>
>> If that' something along the lines of:
>>
>> jta.beginTx() // declaratively or imperatively
>> neo4j.beginTx()
>> ...
>> neo4j.commit()
>> jta.commit() //declaratively or imperatively
>
> They are not limited to writing the above code. In addition, the developer
> can also avoid calling neo4j.beginTx()/neo4j.commit(). Something like:
>
> jta.beginTx() // declaratively or imperatively
> session = driver.session() // internally does session.beginTransaction()
> ...
> jta.commit() //declaratively or imperatively
>
> The calls to neo4j.beginTx()/commit() are ignored.
>
> The choice of ignoring those calls, is made against the alternative of
> throwing an exception. The reason for ignoring the neo4j transactional
> calls, is to be more compatible with existing ne04j code that may be using
> the neo4j transactional code, with the goal that the JTA transaction
> controls the underlying ne04j transaction. Neo4j transactional code also
> runs the statements against the neo4j transaction class, instead of the
> neo4j session class.
You mean having existing code work with the new JTA transaction net?
I don't think you can safely support that. What if the code does
@Transactional
public void doThings() {
session = drive.session();
session.beginTransaction();
// should be:
Transaction transaction = session.beginTransaction();
try {
// do things
catch (Exception e) {
// swallow exception because we will fix things
session.rollback();
// should be:
transaction.failure();
session.beginTransaction();
transaction =
session.beginTransaction();
// do something else
session.commit();
}
}
Such an existing code won't work if JTA in involved and
session.beginTrnasaction() / commit() are ignored.
With the current prototype, the above existing code won't work as
originally intended (with regard to what the original developer had in
mind) with JTA enlistment.
So only code written with the idea of the JTA net in mind will be safe.
Clearly, any existing neo4j code that expects to fail the current neo4j
transaction, then start a new neo4j transaction to fix things, will not
work in the JTA net. As the fixing of things in the JTA net, needs to
occur before marking the JTA transaction for rollback only *or* by
fixing things after the JTA transaction rolls back.
Are there any other holes that come to mind, with regard to existing
neo4j transaction code that won't work as original intended in the JTA net?
>>
>> then I find it very user unfriendly to force the code to call both Tx
>> APIs. It should be one or the other.
>
> Do you really want to rewrite your neo4j code to avoid the neo4j tx APIs
> when enlisted into a JTA transaction? Or should the neo4j tx API calls be
> ignored when enlisted into a JTA transaction (as we are doing now)?
See my above example of already existing code.
For new code that you want to run both in SE and Wildfly, that's an
interesting question but how would you do it in practice? A try catch
but rethrowing the exception in case JTA is involved and needs to be
notified of the tx rollback?
The developer could rewrite their "workaround tx failure" code to avoid
further calls to the neo4j tx api, but this is kind of bad as they only
should do this when the neo4j transaction is enlisted into the JTA
transaction, but not when enlistment is disabled. Some neo4j connection
profiles will be configured to allow JTA enlistment (transaction=1pc)
and some will be configured to not allow JTA enlistment
(transaction=none), so we can expect common application code will likely
be reused for both JTA + non-JTA. Seems to me that SE is always the
same as the WildFly neo4j connection profile with "transaction=none", so
we have the same problem with SE + WildFly, trying to run the same user
code that is expected to work with JTA enlistment (neo4j connection
profile has "transaction=1pc").
I don't know of any CDI magic that helps, as if we add support for
inject of a javax.transaction.TransactionScoped neo4j session, that
works the same as a session obtained from Driver.session().
I'm interested to see concrete code because if doable, it will
have lots
of constraints and be limited to very specific patterns of code I think.
But again, let's show each other code.
That should help us explore the compatibility with existing code idea
and pick which approach to use (e.g. whether explicit neo4j transaction
use in a JTA enlisted transaction should throw an exception or ignore
the explicit transaction use as we are doing now in the prototype).
Should we also post on https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/neo4j to
ask for input on JTA enlistment?
Emmanuel