> > I don't recall the details about why we made that decision, but I > > prefer > > wrapping in a RollbackException for consistency. It sucks to have > > to do: > > I agree that that sucks. Of course, if they want their > application to > be portable, then they'll need to put in that logic anyway :)
Agreed, and we may need to change our behavior later once the spec team clears this up. I'll be lobbying for the spec team to move to the always-wrapped model, though. > > Do you have any opinion about the rollback vs. mark-for-rollback > > distinction? > > Well, section 3.5 suggests that it should be rolled back > immediately, > but then if we start wrapping in a PersistenceException, then 3.7 > says that it should just be marked for rollback. Tricky. I guess I > favor immediate rollback, just since section 3.5 is so explicit in > saying that it should happen. I think that rolling back directly is pretty evil, and as I recall, the spec team agreed at one point. I think that this one just slipped through the cracks. In any event, this is covered in the area of the CTS that was excluded, for just this reason presumably. -- Patrick Linskey BEA Systems, Inc. _______________________________________________________________________ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. > -----Original Message----- > From: Marc Prud'hommeaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Marc Prud'hommeaux > Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 6:49 PM > To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Exceptions thrown from callbacks > > > > > I don't recall the details about why we made that decision, but I > > prefer > > wrapping in a RollbackException for consistency. It sucks to have > > to do: > > I agree that that sucks. Of course, if they want their > application to > be portable, then they'll need to put in that logic anyway :) > > > Do you have any opinion about the rollback vs. mark-for-rollback > > distinction? > > Well, section 3.5 suggests that it should be rolled back > immediately, > but then if we start wrapping in a PersistenceException, then 3.7 > says that it should just be marked for rollback. Tricky. I guess I > favor immediate rollback, just since section 3.5 is so explicit in > saying that it should happen. > > > > On Feb 5, 2007, at 6:27 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote: > > >> As for whether to wrap the exceptions during non-flush/commit times > >> (e.g., during a find() call), I'm a little less keen on it, but not > >> really opposed. The reason is that the clause "Lifecycle callback > >> methods may throw runtime exceptions" suggests to me (and, > >> apparently, to the CTS authors) that they restricted the exception > >> type to be runtime exceptions because they expect the unmodified > >> exception will be thrown straight up the application. Summary: +0 > > > > I don't recall the details about why we made that decision, but I > > prefer > > wrapping in a RollbackException for consistency. It sucks to have > > to do: > > > > try { > > em.find(...); > > em.commit(); > > } catch (RollbackException re) { > > if (re.getCause() instanceof MySpecialException) { > > // custom logic > > } else { > > throw re; > > } > > } catch (MySpecialException mse) { > > // same custom logic as above > > } > > > > > > Do you have any opinion about the rollback vs. mark-for-rollback > > distinction? > > > > -Patrick > > > > -- > > Patrick Linskey > > BEA Systems, Inc. > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > ________ > > _ > > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may > > contain > > information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and > > affiliated > > entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted > > and/or > > legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the > > individual > > or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended > > recipient, > > and have received this message in error, please immediately return > > this > > by email and then delete it. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Marc Prud'hommeaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > >> Behalf Of Marc Prud'hommeaux > >> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 6:20 PM > >> To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org > >> Subject: Re: Exceptions thrown from callbacks > >> > >> > >> I don't have any strong opinions either way. Wrapping is useful, > >> because we can usually provide the FailedObject so that > the user can > >> more easily attempt some recovery. And I do agree that if > a callback > >> exception occurs during a commit()/flush() operation then we should > >> wrap it (and it might as well be in a RollbackException). > Summary: +1 > >> > >> As for whether to wrap the exceptions during non-flush/commit times > >> (e.g., during a find() call), I'm a little less keen on it, but not > >> really opposed. The reason is that the clause "Lifecycle callback > >> methods may throw runtime exceptions" suggests to me (and, > >> apparently, to the CTS authors) that they restricted the exception > >> type to be runtime exceptions because they expect the unmodified > >> exception will be thrown straight up the application. Summary: +0 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Feb 1, 2007, at 3:27 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> There's a bit of ambiguity in the spec about what should happen > >>> when an > >>> exception is thrown from a callback. > >>> > >>> I propose that we change OpenJPA's behavior to always wrap > >> exceptions > >>> thrown from callbacks in a RollbackException. Additionally, > >> I propose > >>> that if a callback is thrown from a direct flush() call or > >> a find() or > >>> other data load, we should mark the transaction for rollback > >>> instead of > >>> immediately rolling back the transaction. > >>> > >>> > >>> Details: > >>> > >>> Section 3.5 says: > >>> > >>> "Lifecycle callback methods may throw unchecked/runtime > >> exceptions. A > >>> runtime exception thrown by a callback method that > executes within a > >>> transaction causes that transaction to be rolled back." > >>> > >>> 3.5.6: > >>> > >>> "Lifecycle callback methods may throw runtime exceptions. > A runtime > >>> exception thrown by a callback method that executes within a > >>> transaction > >>> causes that transaction to be rolled back. No further lifecycle > >>> callback > >>> methods will be invoked after a runtime exception is thrown." > >>> > >>> 3.7: > >>> > >>> "The PersistenceException is thrown by the persistence > >> provider when a > >>> problem occurs. [...] All instances of PersistenceException > >> except for > >>> instances of NoResultException and NonUniqueResultException > >> will cause > >>> the current transaction, if one is active, to be marked for > >> rollback." > >>> > >>> ... > >>> > >>> "The RollbackException is thrown by the persistence provider when > >>> EntityTransaction.commit() fails. > >>> > >>> > >>> So.... in my opinion, this means that if a callback fails during > >>> commit(), the exception thrown by the callback clearly should be > >>> wrapped > >>> in a RollbackException. It is less clear to me what should > >> happen if a > >>> callback fails at some other time, such as during a find() > >> call. In my > >>> opinion, we should be wrapping the user-thrown exceptions in > >>> RollbackExceptions all the time. > >>> > >>> Further, I think that 3.7 trumps 3.5.6, so if an > exception is thrown > >>> from a callback during a find(), we should be marking the > >> transaction > >>> for rollback, rather than actually rolling it back. > >>> > >>> I've got changes in place that implement the behavior I just > >>> described. > >>> The CTS tests surrounding this issue have been excluded, > due to the > >>> ambiguity in the spec. > >>> > >>> Thoughts? > >>> > >>> -Patrick > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Patrick Linskey > >>> BEA Systems, Inc. > >>> > >>> > >> ______________________________________________________________ > >> ________ > >>> _ > >>> Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may > >>> contain > >>> information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and > >>> affiliated > >>> entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted > >>> and/or > >>> legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the > >>> individual > >>> or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended > >>> recipient, > >>> and have received this message in error, please immediately return > >>> this > >>> by email and then delete it. > >> > >> > >
