[hibernate-dev] ORM 5.2 issue with getInterceptor() not being a true getter

[Guillaume Smet]

Hi!

Any comment on this?

After reading the javadoc of SharedSessionContractImplementor, I think we
should probably just get rid of the `checkTransactionSynchStatus();` call
in getInterceptor().

I don't think getInterceptor() should be responsible for joining the
transaction.

What do you all think?

-- 
Guillaume

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Guillaume Smet <guillaume.smet at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Note to Gail: this is potentially a blocking issue for 5.2.11 for the OGM
> upgrade (I thought it was a bug in OGM but apparently, it's an issue with
> ORM).
>
> In 5.2 SessionImpl, we now use getInterceptor() instead of accessing the
> interceptor field directly because the field has been moved to
> AbstractSharedSessionContract.
>
> See for instance the change made here in afterTransactionCompletion():
> https://github.com/hibernate/hibernate-orm/blame/master/
> hibernate-core/src/main/java/org/hibernate/internal/SessionImpl.java#L2443
>
> I think this is an issue as getInterceptor() is not a simple getter but is:
> @Override
> public Interceptor getInterceptor() {
>     checkTransactionSynchStatus();
>     return interceptor;
> }
>
> protected void checkTransactionSynchStatus() {
>     pulseTransactionCoordinator();
>     delayedAfterCompletion();
> }
>
> Thus calling the pulse() method of the TransactionCoordinator, triggering
> an implicit join whereas we're in the afterTransactionCompletion() phase.
>
> This is an issue for us as the pulse() method of our
> TransactionCoordinator creates Neo4j transactions so when the
> getInterceptor() method is called in afterTransactionCompletion(), we
> create a new Neo4j transaction.
>
> So 2 questions:
> - should we really call checkTransactionSynchStatus(); in
> getInterceptor()? If feels a bit weird.
> - if so, I think we should have a true protected getter (interceptor()
> following Steve's convention?) to avoid SessionImpl "pulsing" the
> transaction coordinator when accessing the interceptor.
>
> Thanks for your feedback!
>
> --
> Guillaume
>