"Better" according to whom? ;)
I personally very much dislike the kind of API explosion this kind of thing
leads to.
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:59 PM Sanne Grinovero <sa...@hibernate.org> wrote:
> On 14 September 2016 at 20:32, Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org> wrote:
> > The problem with "execute in isolation" here is that the "isolation"
> aspect
> > refers to being isolated from any current transaction. It says nothing
> > about whether that stuff-to-execute should itself be transacted. This is
> > why, for example, you see IsolationDelegate accept a `transacted` boolean
> > argument.
> >
> > How would you propose we pass such a flag in this case? Or are you
> > proposing that this always start a (new) transaction?
>
> I had only the (new) transaction case in mind, but sure you could add
> a `transacted` boolean parameter.
>
> Or we make it explicit with a better method name:
>
> s.executeInSubtransaction( session -> session.save(...) );
>
> Thanks,
> Sanne
>
>
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:39 PM Sanne Grinovero <sa...@hibernate.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Today porting some benchmark code to Hibernate ORM 5.2 I had several
> >> difficulties around the fact that the code now needs to be different
> >> depending on transactions being container managed or not.
> >>
> >> My goal was to have a single benchmark test which I could compile once
> >> and run in either JavaSE or CMT; with some help from Steve I figured
> >> the necessary incantations out but ... it looks very unpractical.
> >>
> >> One way is to use an isolation delegate, which looks like this:
> >>
> >> final SessionImplementor session = (SessionImplementor) s;
> >>
> >>
> session.getTransactionCoordinator().createIsolationDelegate().delegateWork(
> >> new WorkExecutorVisitable() {
> >> @ Override
> >> public Object accept(WorkExecutor executor, Connection
> >> connection) throws SQLException {
> >> /// Some work with PreparedStatement on Connection..
> >> }
> >> }, true );
> >>
> >> This worked fine for some raw SQL used for the benchmark
> >> initialization, but in another case I'd prefer to use the Session API
> >> rather than dealing with PreparedStatements and native connections;
> >> it looks like we don't have an equivalent "run code in isolation" for
> >> the Session ?
> >>
> >> It would be great if I could just pass a lambda to a Session and have
> >> this executed on a "child Session" in the scope of a "child
> >> Transaction", or just start and commit a transaction if there isn't
> >> one.
> >>
> >> s.executeInIsolation( session -> session.save(...) );
> >>
> >> So I'd expect that details like how to begin the transaction, how it
> >> should be committed (or rolled back in case of exceptions), how to
> >> lookup a TransactionManager, and especially how to not leak resources
> >> should be handled for the user.
> >>
> >> Obviously the inner Session instance is a different one than the
> >> outer, so any data returned by this block should be considered
> >> detached; maybe this limitation would be clearer if the method was
> >> hosted on SessionFactory or StatelessSession instead?
> >> Although it wouldn't necessarily have the limitations of a
> >> StalessSession, and it would be nice to have the inner transaction
> >> behave as a nested one when there's already one in the host Session.
> >>
> >> Looking forward for comments and improvement ideas :)
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Sanne
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> hibernate-dev mailing list
> >> hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
>
_______________________________________________
hibernate-dev mailing list
hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
