[jboss-jira] [JBoss JIRA] (JBJCA-1357) TransactionSynchronizer registered as interposed synchronization leads to ordering issue when using hibernate

[Scott Marlow (JIRA)]

    [ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBJCA-1357?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13482314#comment-13482314 ] 

Scott Marlow commented on JBJCA-1357:
-------------------------------------

You can look at the org.jboss.as.txn.service.internal.tsr.JCAOrderedLastSynchronizationList class in WildFly to see what we did. 

> TransactionSynchronizer registered as interposed synchronization leads to ordering issue when using hibernate
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: JBJCA-1357
>                 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBJCA-1357
>             Project: IronJacamar
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 1.4.5
>            Reporter: Alexander Pinske
>         Attachments: jca-hibernate.zip
>
>
> The TransactionSynchronizer (to cleanup connections) is registered as an interposed synchronization. Hibernate also registers its synchronization (to close the underlying JDBC connection handle) as interposed.
> This leads to undefined ordering, which in my case runs the JCA Synch before the Hibernate Synch. This leads to a log of IJ000316 and the connection being killed.
> I think that platform specific cleanup should be executed after all application level synchronization have run, therefore it should be registered with the TM (not the TSR).
> http://www.ironjacamar.org/doc/roadto12/txtracking.html describes this as an application misbehaviour. But I don't think the application has any means of controlling the ordering in this scenario.
> If I do not provide a TSR to the TransactionIntegrationImpl (which would lead to the registration of the TransactionSynchronizer via TransactionManager - thus non-interposed) has the problem that AbstractPool uses the TSR to check if a transaction is actually in progress.
> I don't know if my rationale is correct. Could you please comment on the issue?
> Thanks!



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.5.0#75005)