[hibernate-dev] Exceptions thrown in a tx synchronization are eaten

[Adam Warski]

Sure, it's rev 19928: I register both a TX synchronization and a before completion process. So:
* for a JTA environment, part of the audit records will be written in the before completion process (if there was a manual flush), and part in the tx sync (automatic flush). Both propagate exceptions
* in a resource-local env, all audit records will be written in the before tx completion process, and so all exceptions propagated

But this is really a hack, I think the inconsistency should be fixed :).

On Jul 11, 2010, at 5:53 PM, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:

> Ahhhh, Hibernate Search has the same problem but I could not pin point the issue.
> Can you point me to the temp patch approach you're using.
> 
> On 10 juil. 2010, at 10:05, Adam Warski wrote:
> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> because the thread is a bit old a small reminder what it was about:
>> Envers used TX Synchronizations to write the audit data to a database, before the transaction completed. However, exceptions thrown during a synchronization are "eaten" (JDBCTransaction:274). The solution then was to use, instead of a Synchronization, a BeforeTransactionCompletionProcess.
>> 
>> This, however, as it turns out, causes big problems in a JTA environment (with resource-local txs all works fine): audit records are sometimes not written. This is because the before tx completion process is called before tx synchronizations, and in JTA the auto-flush at the end of a session is done using a TX synchronization (AbstractEntityManagerImpl:1020). And it doesn't look like exceptions are eaten when thrown from a synchronization in JTA - otherwise any exception that occurred during a flush would go unnoticed (and I know from practice this doesn't happen ;) ).
>> 
>> So isn't this inconsistent? Shouldn't the exceptions in JDBCTransaction be rethrown as well?
>> 
>> For now a fix is to register both a BTCP and a TX Sync to write the audit records, but I'd say it's rather a temporary patch :)
>> 
>> On Mar 31, 2010, at 1:00 PM, Adam Warski wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>>> In an ideal world, a Synchronization should swallow exceptions (or do whatever it wants with it) if the exception should not tamper with the main Hibernate execution. In a word, Synchronization would be in control. It has my preference but It's a change of semantic.
>>> 
>>> Then maybe do as Steve suggested, either:
>>> - introduce a new method to Synchronization (that would break existing synchronizations)
>>> or
>>> - introduce a new interface SynchronizationRollback which can be optionally implemented by the synchronization method
>>> Then in JDBC transaction we could do:
>>> 
>>> if ((sync instanceof SynchronizationRollback) && ((SynchronizationRollback) sync).shouldRollback(exception) { // rollback }
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Adam Warski
>>> http://www.warski.org
>>> http://www.softwaremill.eu
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> hibernate-dev mailing list
>>> hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
>> 
>> -- 
>> Adam Warski
>> http://www.warski.org
>> http://www.softwaremill.eu
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> hibernate-dev mailing list
>> hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
> 

-- 
Adam Warski
http://www.warski.org
http://www.softwaremill.eu