Re: EntityManager.clear() semantics
So, officially, no new test cases are allowed to be introduced except via the JCP Change Review process that results in an updated version of the spec, RI, and TCK. So it's a fairly grand scale process for something as massive as Java EE 5. It's a lot less effort to "simply" update the JSR 220 specification but they might be thinking "need to update the entire JSR 243 stack" for this change. Craig On Feb 6, 2007, at 6:03 AM, Kevin Sutter wrote: Thanks, Craig. I also asked our CTS rep to present this new testcase, but I haven't heard what the result is. I did find out that they normally do not introduce new tests during a test cycle (ie. Java EE 5). They only remove testcases based on successful challenges. But, they will take note of new test requests and possibly include them in the next round. That's what our experience has been anyway. Kevin On 2/5/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I've forwarded the new test case to our CTS team here. They will take a look to see if it can be adapted to the CTS test framework. Craig On Jan 31, 2007, at 6:25 AM, Kevin Sutter wrote: > Craig, > If anybody would have a channel to the CTS team, I would think it > would be > you. :-) I have also passed on this request to our CTS rep to see > where it > takes us. Good idea. Thanks. > > Kevin > > On 1/30/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Hi Kevin, >> >> I agree with your analysis. >> >> I would also like to see a CTS test made for this case. Do we have a >> channel through BEA or IBM for requests for CTS test cases? >> >> Another recent example is the EntityManager.getDelegate behavior >> which surely should be a candidate for a CTS test. >> >> Craig >> >> On Jan 30, 2007, at 2:32 PM, Kevin Sutter wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > We've noticed that when EntityManager.clear() is invoked, an >> implicit >> > flush() is performed. Although the spec is cloudy in this area, I >> > don't >> > think this processing is correct. The javadoc is as follows for >> > clear(): >> > >> > /** >> > * Clear the persistence context, causing all managed >> > * entities to become detached. Changes made to entities that >> > * have not been flushed to the database will not be >> > * persisted. >> > */ >> > public void clear(); >> > >> > This indicates that Entities that have not been flushed will not be >> > persisted. Thus, I would say this implies that we should not be >> > doing an >> > implicit flush. If the application wanted their Entities to be >> > flushed >> > before the clear, then they can call the flush() method before >> calling >> > clear(). We shouldn't be doing this for them because then they >> > have no >> > choice. >> > >> > The Pro EJB3 Java Persistence API book has similar wording on pages >> > 138-139: >> > >> > "..In many respects [clear] is semantically equivalent to a >> > transaction >> > rollback. All entity instances managed by the persistence context >> > become >> > detached with their state left exactly as it was when the clear() >> > operation >> > was invoked..." >> > >> > Our current processing for clear() eventually gets to this code: >> > >> >public void detachAll(OpCallbacks call) { >> >beginOperation(true); >> >try { >> >if ((_flags & FLAG_FLUSH_REQUIRED) != 0) >> >flush(); >> >detachAllInternal(call); >> >} catch (OpenJPAException ke) { >> >throw ke; >> >} catch (RuntimeException re) { >> >throw new GeneralException(re); >> >} finally { >> >endOperation(); >> >} >> >} >> > >> > Basically, if we have dirtied the Persistence Context, then do a >> > flush() >> > followed by the detachAllInternal(). I don't think the clear() >> > should be >> > doing this flush() operation. Any disagreement? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Kevin >> >> Craig Russell >> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/ products/ >> jdo >> 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! >> >> >> >> Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/ jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: EntityManager.clear() semantics
Thanks, Craig. I also asked our CTS rep to present this new testcase, but I haven't heard what the result is. I did find out that they normally do not introduce new tests during a test cycle (ie. Java EE 5). They only remove testcases based on successful challenges. But, they will take note of new test requests and possibly include them in the next round. That's what our experience has been anyway. Kevin On 2/5/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I've forwarded the new test case to our CTS team here. They will take a look to see if it can be adapted to the CTS test framework. Craig On Jan 31, 2007, at 6:25 AM, Kevin Sutter wrote: > Craig, > If anybody would have a channel to the CTS team, I would think it > would be > you. :-) I have also passed on this request to our CTS rep to see > where it > takes us. Good idea. Thanks. > > Kevin > > On 1/30/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Hi Kevin, >> >> I agree with your analysis. >> >> I would also like to see a CTS test made for this case. Do we have a >> channel through BEA or IBM for requests for CTS test cases? >> >> Another recent example is the EntityManager.getDelegate behavior >> which surely should be a candidate for a CTS test. >> >> Craig >> >> On Jan 30, 2007, at 2:32 PM, Kevin Sutter wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > We've noticed that when EntityManager.clear() is invoked, an >> implicit >> > flush() is performed. Although the spec is cloudy in this area, I >> > don't >> > think this processing is correct. The javadoc is as follows for >> > clear(): >> > >> > /** >> > * Clear the persistence context, causing all managed >> > * entities to become detached. Changes made to entities that >> > * have not been flushed to the database will not be >> > * persisted. >> > */ >> > public void clear(); >> > >> > This indicates that Entities that have not been flushed will not be >> > persisted. Thus, I would say this implies that we should not be >> > doing an >> > implicit flush. If the application wanted their Entities to be >> > flushed >> > before the clear, then they can call the flush() method before >> calling >> > clear(). We shouldn't be doing this for them because then they >> > have no >> > choice. >> > >> > The Pro EJB3 Java Persistence API book has similar wording on pages >> > 138-139: >> > >> > "..In many respects [clear] is semantically equivalent to a >> > transaction >> > rollback. All entity instances managed by the persistence context >> > become >> > detached with their state left exactly as it was when the clear() >> > operation >> > was invoked..." >> > >> > Our current processing for clear() eventually gets to this code: >> > >> >public void detachAll(OpCallbacks call) { >> >beginOperation(true); >> >try { >> >if ((_flags & FLAG_FLUSH_REQUIRED) != 0) >> >flush(); >> >detachAllInternal(call); >> >} catch (OpenJPAException ke) { >> >throw ke; >> >} catch (RuntimeException re) { >> >throw new GeneralException(re); >> >} finally { >> >endOperation(); >> >} >> >} >> > >> > Basically, if we have dirtied the Persistence Context, then do a >> > flush() >> > followed by the detachAllInternal(). I don't think the clear() >> > should be >> > doing this flush() operation. Any disagreement? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Kevin >> >> Craig Russell >> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/ >> jdo >> 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! >> >> >> >> Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: EntityManager.clear() semantics
I've forwarded the new test case to our CTS team here. They will take a look to see if it can be adapted to the CTS test framework. Craig On Jan 31, 2007, at 6:25 AM, Kevin Sutter wrote: Craig, If anybody would have a channel to the CTS team, I would think it would be you. :-) I have also passed on this request to our CTS rep to see where it takes us. Good idea. Thanks. Kevin On 1/30/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Kevin, I agree with your analysis. I would also like to see a CTS test made for this case. Do we have a channel through BEA or IBM for requests for CTS test cases? Another recent example is the EntityManager.getDelegate behavior which surely should be a candidate for a CTS test. Craig On Jan 30, 2007, at 2:32 PM, Kevin Sutter wrote: > Hi, > We've noticed that when EntityManager.clear() is invoked, an implicit > flush() is performed. Although the spec is cloudy in this area, I > don't > think this processing is correct. The javadoc is as follows for > clear(): > > /** > * Clear the persistence context, causing all managed > * entities to become detached. Changes made to entities that > * have not been flushed to the database will not be > * persisted. > */ > public void clear(); > > This indicates that Entities that have not been flushed will not be > persisted. Thus, I would say this implies that we should not be > doing an > implicit flush. If the application wanted their Entities to be > flushed > before the clear, then they can call the flush() method before calling > clear(). We shouldn't be doing this for them because then they > have no > choice. > > The Pro EJB3 Java Persistence API book has similar wording on pages > 138-139: > > "..In many respects [clear] is semantically equivalent to a > transaction > rollback. All entity instances managed by the persistence context > become > detached with their state left exactly as it was when the clear() > operation > was invoked..." > > Our current processing for clear() eventually gets to this code: > >public void detachAll(OpCallbacks call) { >beginOperation(true); >try { >if ((_flags & FLAG_FLUSH_REQUIRED) != 0) >flush(); >detachAllInternal(call); >} catch (OpenJPAException ke) { >throw ke; >} catch (RuntimeException re) { >throw new GeneralException(re); >} finally { >endOperation(); >} >} > > Basically, if we have dirtied the Persistence Context, then do a > flush() > followed by the detachAllInternal(). I don't think the clear() > should be > doing this flush() operation. Any disagreement? > > Thanks, > Kevin Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/ jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: EntityManager.clear() semantics
Understood, Abe. I just wanted to get some agreement with you and/or Patrick before pursuing this type of change. Thanks! Kevin On 1/31/07, Abe White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Basically, if we have dirtied the Persistence Context, then do a > flush() > followed by the detachAllInternal(). I don't think the clear() > should be > doing this flush() operation. Any disagreement? I agree. But note that just removing the flush call won't work for a couple of reasons: it's needed by JDO, and we'll just flush later in the DetachManager when we detect a dirty instance. So just a warning that it isn't quite as trivial a fix as it might appear to be. ___ 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.
Re: EntityManager.clear() semantics
Basically, if we have dirtied the Persistence Context, then do a flush() followed by the detachAllInternal(). I don't think the clear() should be doing this flush() operation. Any disagreement? I agree. But note that just removing the flush call won't work for a couple of reasons: it's needed by JDO, and we'll just flush later in the DetachManager when we detect a dirty instance. So just a warning that it isn't quite as trivial a fix as it might appear to be. ___ 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.
Re: EntityManager.clear() semantics
Craig, If anybody would have a channel to the CTS team, I would think it would be you. :-) I have also passed on this request to our CTS rep to see where it takes us. Good idea. Thanks. Kevin On 1/30/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Kevin, I agree with your analysis. I would also like to see a CTS test made for this case. Do we have a channel through BEA or IBM for requests for CTS test cases? Another recent example is the EntityManager.getDelegate behavior which surely should be a candidate for a CTS test. Craig On Jan 30, 2007, at 2:32 PM, Kevin Sutter wrote: > Hi, > We've noticed that when EntityManager.clear() is invoked, an implicit > flush() is performed. Although the spec is cloudy in this area, I > don't > think this processing is correct. The javadoc is as follows for > clear(): > > /** > * Clear the persistence context, causing all managed > * entities to become detached. Changes made to entities that > * have not been flushed to the database will not be > * persisted. > */ > public void clear(); > > This indicates that Entities that have not been flushed will not be > persisted. Thus, I would say this implies that we should not be > doing an > implicit flush. If the application wanted their Entities to be > flushed > before the clear, then they can call the flush() method before calling > clear(). We shouldn't be doing this for them because then they > have no > choice. > > The Pro EJB3 Java Persistence API book has similar wording on pages > 138-139: > > "..In many respects [clear] is semantically equivalent to a > transaction > rollback. All entity instances managed by the persistence context > become > detached with their state left exactly as it was when the clear() > operation > was invoked..." > > Our current processing for clear() eventually gets to this code: > >public void detachAll(OpCallbacks call) { >beginOperation(true); >try { >if ((_flags & FLAG_FLUSH_REQUIRED) != 0) >flush(); >detachAllInternal(call); >} catch (OpenJPAException ke) { >throw ke; >} catch (RuntimeException re) { >throw new GeneralException(re); >} finally { >endOperation(); >} >} > > Basically, if we have dirtied the Persistence Context, then do a > flush() > followed by the detachAllInternal(). I don't think the clear() > should be > doing this flush() operation. Any disagreement? > > Thanks, > Kevin Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: EntityManager.clear() semantics
Hi Kevin, I agree with your analysis. I would also like to see a CTS test made for this case. Do we have a channel through BEA or IBM for requests for CTS test cases? Another recent example is the EntityManager.getDelegate behavior which surely should be a candidate for a CTS test. Craig On Jan 30, 2007, at 2:32 PM, Kevin Sutter wrote: Hi, We've noticed that when EntityManager.clear() is invoked, an implicit flush() is performed. Although the spec is cloudy in this area, I don't think this processing is correct. The javadoc is as follows for clear(): /** * Clear the persistence context, causing all managed * entities to become detached. Changes made to entities that * have not been flushed to the database will not be * persisted. */ public void clear(); This indicates that Entities that have not been flushed will not be persisted. Thus, I would say this implies that we should not be doing an implicit flush. If the application wanted their Entities to be flushed before the clear, then they can call the flush() method before calling clear(). We shouldn't be doing this for them because then they have no choice. The Pro EJB3 Java Persistence API book has similar wording on pages 138-139: "..In many respects [clear] is semantically equivalent to a transaction rollback. All entity instances managed by the persistence context become detached with their state left exactly as it was when the clear() operation was invoked..." Our current processing for clear() eventually gets to this code: public void detachAll(OpCallbacks call) { beginOperation(true); try { if ((_flags & FLAG_FLUSH_REQUIRED) != 0) flush(); detachAllInternal(call); } catch (OpenJPAException ke) { throw ke; } catch (RuntimeException re) { throw new GeneralException(re); } finally { endOperation(); } } Basically, if we have dirtied the Persistence Context, then do a flush() followed by the detachAllInternal(). I don't think the clear() should be doing this flush() operation. Any disagreement? Thanks, Kevin Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
EntityManager.clear() semantics
Hi, We've noticed that when EntityManager.clear() is invoked, an implicit flush() is performed. Although the spec is cloudy in this area, I don't think this processing is correct. The javadoc is as follows for clear(): /** * Clear the persistence context, causing all managed * entities to become detached. Changes made to entities that * have not been flushed to the database will not be * persisted. */ public void clear(); This indicates that Entities that have not been flushed will not be persisted. Thus, I would say this implies that we should not be doing an implicit flush. If the application wanted their Entities to be flushed before the clear, then they can call the flush() method before calling clear(). We shouldn't be doing this for them because then they have no choice. The Pro EJB3 Java Persistence API book has similar wording on pages 138-139: "..In many respects [clear] is semantically equivalent to a transaction rollback. All entity instances managed by the persistence context become detached with their state left exactly as it was when the clear() operation was invoked..." Our current processing for clear() eventually gets to this code: public void detachAll(OpCallbacks call) { beginOperation(true); try { if ((_flags & FLAG_FLUSH_REQUIRED) != 0) flush(); detachAllInternal(call); } catch (OpenJPAException ke) { throw ke; } catch (RuntimeException re) { throw new GeneralException(re); } finally { endOperation(); } } Basically, if we have dirtied the Persistence Context, then do a flush() followed by the detachAllInternal(). I don't think the clear() should be doing this flush() operation. Any disagreement? Thanks, Kevin