Search Results

Search found 2636 results on 106 pages for 'transaction isolation'.

Page 15/106 | < Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >

  • Transaction issue in java with hibernate - latest entries not pulled from database

    - by Gearóid
    Hi, I'm having what seems to be a transactional issue in my application. I'm using Java 1.6 and Hibernate 3.2.5. My application runs a monthly process where it creates billing entries for a every user in the database based on their monthly activity. These billing entries are then used to create Monthly Bill object. The process is: Get users who have activity in the past month Create the relevant billing entries for each user Get the set of billing entries that we've just created Create a Monthly Bill based on these entries Everything works fine until Step 3 above. The Billing Entries are correctly created (I can see them in the database if I add a breakpoint after the Billing Entry creation method), but they are not pulled out of the database. As a result, an incorrect Monthly Bill is generated. If I run the code again (without clearing out the database), new Billing Entries are created and Step 3 pulls out the entries created in the first run (but not the second run). This, to me, is very confusing. My code looks like the following: for (User user : usersWithActivities) { createBillingEntriesForUser(user.getId()); userBillingEntries = getLastMonthsBillingEntriesForUser(user.getId()); createXMLBillForUser(user.getId(), userBillingEntries); } The methods called look like the following: @Transactional public void createBillingEntriesForUser(Long id) { UserManager userManager = ManagerFactory.getUserManager(); User user = userManager.getUser(id); List<AccountEvent> events = getLastMonthsAccountEventsForUser(id); BillingEntry entry = new BillingEntry(); if (null != events) { for (AccountEvent event : events) { if (event.getEventType().equals(EventType.ENABLE)) { Calendar cal = Calendar.getInstance(); Date eventDate = event.getTimestamp(); cal.setTime(eventDate); double startDate = cal.get(Calendar.DATE); double numOfDaysInMonth = cal.getActualMaximum(Calendar.DAY_OF_MONTH); double numberOfDaysInUse = numOfDaysInMonth - startDate; double fractionToCharge = numberOfDaysInUse/numOfDaysInMonth; BigDecimal amount = BigDecimal.valueOf(fractionToCharge * Prices.MONTHLY_COST); amount.scale(); entry.setAmount(amount); entry.setUser(user); entry.setTimestamp(eventDate); userManager.saveOrUpdate(entry); } } } } @Transactional public Collection<BillingEntry> getLastMonthsBillingEntriesForUser(Long id) { if (log.isDebugEnabled()) log.debug("Getting all the billing entries for last month for user with ID " + id); //String queryString = "select billingEntry from BillingEntry as billingEntry where billingEntry>=:firstOfLastMonth and billingEntry.timestamp<:firstOfCurrentMonth and billingEntry.user=:user"; String queryString = "select be from BillingEntry as be join be.user as user where user.id=:id and be.timestamp>=:firstOfLastMonth and be.timestamp<:firstOfCurrentMonth"; //This parameter will be the start of the last month ie. start of billing cycle SearchParameter firstOfLastMonth = new SearchParameter(); firstOfLastMonth.setTemporalType(TemporalType.DATE); //this parameter holds the start of the CURRENT month - ie. end of billing cycle SearchParameter firstOfCurrentMonth = new SearchParameter(); firstOfCurrentMonth.setTemporalType(TemporalType.DATE); Query query = super.entityManager.createQuery(queryString); query.setParameter("firstOfCurrentMonth", getFirstOfCurrentMonth()); query.setParameter("firstOfLastMonth", getFirstOfLastMonth()); query.setParameter("id", id); List<BillingEntry> entries = query.getResultList(); return entries; } public MonthlyBill createXMLBillForUser(Long id, Collection<BillingEntry> billingEntries) { BillingHistoryManager manager = ManagerFactory.getBillingHistoryManager(); UserManager userManager = ManagerFactory.getUserManager(); MonthlyBill mb = new MonthlyBill(); User user = userManager.getUser(id); mb.setUser(user); mb.setTimestamp(new Date()); Set<BillingEntry> entries = new HashSet<BillingEntry>(); entries.addAll(billingEntries); String xml = createXmlForMonthlyBill(user, entries); mb.setXmlBill(xml); mb.setBillingEntries(entries); MonthlyBill bill = (MonthlyBill) manager.saveOrUpdate(mb); return bill; } Help with this issue would be greatly appreciated as its been wracking my brain for weeks now! Thanks in advance, Gearoid.

    Read the article

  • Oracle transaction read-consistency ?

    - by trojanwarrior3000
    I have problem understanding read consistency in db(oracle). Suppose I am manger of a bank . A customer has got lock (which I dont know) and is doing some updation. Now after he has got lock I am viewing account info of the same customer and try to do some thing on it.But because of read consistency I will see data as it existed before customer got the lock. So will not that affect inputs I am getting and the decisions that I am gonna make during that period?

    Read the article

  • GAE transaction exceptions

    - by bach
    Hi, In this example IS the exception being thrown if ANY of the Table elements are being changed by another client OR only if the element that we changed has been changed by another client? Just to verify - the exception is thrown from the commit() isn't it? PersistenceManager pm = PMF.get().getPersistenceManager(); try { pm.currentTransaction().begin(); List<Row> Table = (List<Row>) pm.newQuery(query).execute(); Table.get(0).setReserved(true); // <----- we change only this element pm.currentTransaction().commit(); } catch (JDOCanRetryException ex) { pm.currentTransaction().rollback() // <----- if Table.get(1) was changed by another client do we get to this point??? }

    Read the article

  • Mixing Transaction Script pattern with DDD/CQRS

    - by Herman
    Hi all, Here is the situation, in order to support our legacy system, we need to insert to a table whenever a user logs in. This is basically an CRUD operation, so it doesn't really make sense to create repository/entity/command/event for this since this doesn't tie to any business rules at all. The only benefit to create a CQRS command is that this database write can happen asynchronously under that model. Which is a better route to take? Use CQRS, and then call a stored proc. when handling that command? Just call database directly in the controller (I am using asp.net mvc)

    Read the article

  • EJB and JPA and @OneToMany - Transaction too long?

    - by marioErr
    Hello. I'm using EJB and JPA, and when I try to access PhoneNumber objects in phoneNumbers attribute of Contact contact, it sometimes take several minutes for it to actually return data. It just returns no phoneNumbers, not even null, and then, after some time, when i call it again, it magically appears. This is how I access data: for (Contact c : contactFacade.findAll()) { System.out.print(c.getName()+" "+c.getSurname()+" : "); for (PhoneNumber pn : c.getPhoneNumbers()) { System.out.print(pn.getNumber()+" ("+pn.getDescription()+"); "); } } I'm using facade session ejb generated by netbeans (basic CRUD methods). It always prints correct name and surname, phonenumbers and description are only printed after some time (it varies) from creating it via facade. I'm guessing it has something to do with transactions. How to solve this? These are my JPA entities: contact @Entity public class Contact implements Serializable { private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L; @Id @GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.AUTO) private Long id; private String name; private String surname; @OneToMany(cascade = CascadeType.REMOVE, mappedBy = "contact") private Collection<PhoneNumber> phoneNumbers = new ArrayList<PhoneNumber>(); phonenumber @Entity public class PhoneNumber implements Serializable { private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L; @Id @GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.AUTO) private Long id; private String number; private String description; @ManyToOne() @JoinColumn(name="CONTACT_ID") private Contact contact;

    Read the article

  • How to group a database write and spreadsheet write in single "transaction"

    - by WhyGeeEx
    I have a Java program that writes results to both a DB (SQL Server) and a spreadsheet (POI), and it would be best if neither is written to if there's an error with either. It would be a lot worse if the spreadsheet was produced and then an error happened while saving to the DB, so I'm doing the DB-write first. Even so, I'm wondering if someone knows of a way to guarantee they both succeed or fail as a unit. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • LINQ-SQL Updating Multiple Rows in a single transaction

    - by RPM1984
    Hi guys, I need help re-factoring this legacy LINQ-SQL code which is generating around 100 update statements. I'll keep playing around with the best solution, but would appreciate some ideas/past experience with this issue. Here's my code: List<Foo> foos; int userId = 123; using (DataClassesDataContext db = new FooDatabase()) { foos = (from f in db.FooBars where f.UserId = userId select f).ToList(); foreach (FooBar fooBar in foos) { fooBar.IsFoo = false; } db.SubmitChanges() } Essentially i want to update the IsFoo field to false for all records that have a particular UserId value. Whats happening is the .ToList() is firing off a query to get all the FooBars for a particular user, then for each Foo object, its executing an UPDATE statement updating the IsFoo property. Can the above code be re-factored to one single UPDATE statement? Ideally, the only SQL i want fired is the below: UPDATE FooBars SET IsFoo = FALSE WHERE UserId = 123 EDIT Ok so looks like it cant be done without using db.ExecuteCommand. Grr...! What i'll probably end up doing is creating another extension method for the DLINQ namespace. Still require some hardcoding (ie writing "WHERE" and "UPDATE"), but at least it hides most of the implementation details away from the actual LINQ query syntax.

    Read the article

  • how to merge ecommerce transaction data between two databases

    - by yamspog
    We currently run an ecommerce solution for a leisure and travel company. Everytime we have a release, we must bring the ecommerce site down as we update database schema and the data access code. We are using a custom built ORM where each data entity is responsible for their own CRUD operations. This is accomplished by dynamically generating the SQL based on attributes in the data entity. For example, the data entity for an address would be... [tableName="address"] public class address : dataEntity { [column="address1"] public string address1; [column="city"] public string city; } So, if we add a new column to the database, we must update the schema of the database and also update the data entity. As you can expect, the business people are not too happy about this outage as it puts a crimp in their cash-flow. The operations people are not happy as they have to deal with a high-pressure time when database and applications are upgraded. The programmers are upset as they are constantly getting in trouble for the legacy system that they inherited. Do any of you smart people out there have some suggestions?

    Read the article

  • SQLITE (C/C++interface) - How to commit a transaction

    - by AJ
    I am using sqlite c/c++ interface. Now here is my scenario - I have 3 tables (related tables) say A, B, C. Now, there is a function called Set, which get some inputs and based on the inputs inserts rows into these three tables. (sometimes it can be an update in one of the tables) Now I need two things. One, i dont want autocommit feature. Basically I would like to commit after every 1000 calls to Set function Secondly, within the set function itself, if i find that after inserting into two tables, the third insert fails, then i have to revert, those particular changes in that Set function call. Now i dont see any sqlite3_commit function exposed. I only see a function called sqlite3_commit_hook() which is slightly diff in documentation. Are there any function exposed for this purpose? or What is the way to achieve this behaviour? Can you help me with the best approach of doing this. Regards, Arjun

    Read the article

  • GAE transaction exception suggestion

    - by bach
    Hi, The current situation encourages the design of the system to split object fields to seperate objects in order to reduce the chance of the JDOCanRetryException to be thrown. If we could have the fields that were changed by the other client who changed the object in the exception content itself we could deside whether to re-retrieve the object or ignore...

    Read the article

  • database transaction rollback processing in PHP

    - by user198729
    try { $con->beginTransaction(); $this->doSave($con); $con->commit(); } catch (Exception $e) { $con->rollBack(); throw $e; } The code above is quite standard an approach to deal with transactions, but my question is:what if $con->rollBack() also fails? It may cause db lock,right?If so,what's the perfect way to go?

    Read the article

  • replicating master tables mapping in transaction tables

    - by NoDisplay
    I have three master tables for location information Country {ID, Name} State {ID, Name, CountryID} City {ID, Name, StateID} Now I have one transcation table called Person which hold the person name and his location information. My Question is shall I have only CityID in the Person table like this: Person {ID, Name, CityID}' And have view of join query which give me detail like "Person{ID,Name,City,State,Country}" or Shall I replicate the mapping Person {ID, Name, CityID, StateID, CountryID} Please suggest which do you feel is to be selected and why? if there is any other option available, please suggest. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Refactor This (Ugly Code)!

    - by Alois Kraus
    Ayende has put on his blog some ugly code to refactor. First and foremost it is nearly impossible to reason about other peoples code without knowing the driving forces behind the current code. It is certainly possible to make it much cleaner when potential sources of errors cannot happen in the first place due to good design. I can see what the intention of the code is but I do not know about every brittle detail if I am allowed to reorder things here and there to simplify things. So I decided to make it much simpler by identifying the different responsibilities of the methods and encapsulate it in different classes. The code we need to refactor seems to deal with a handler after a message has been sent to a message queue. The handler does complete the current transaction if there is any and does handle any errors happening there. If during the the completion of the transaction errors occur the transaction is at least disposed. We can enter the handler already in a faulty state where we try to deliver the complete event in any case and signal a failure event and try to resend the message again to the queue if it was not inside a transaction. All is decorated with many try/catch blocks, duplicated code and some state variables to route the program flow. It is hard to understand and difficult to reason about. In other words: This code is a mess and could be written by me if I was under pressure. Here comes to code we want to refactor:         private void HandleMessageCompletion(                                      Message message,                                      TransactionScope tx,                                      OpenedQueue messageQueue,                                      Exception exception,                                      Action<CurrentMessageInformation, Exception> messageCompleted,                                      Action<CurrentMessageInformation> beforeTransactionCommit)         {             var txDisposed = false;             if (exception == null)             {                 try                 {                     if (tx != null)                     {                         if (beforeTransactionCommit != null)                             beforeTransactionCommit(currentMessageInformation);                         tx.Complete();                         tx.Dispose();                         txDisposed = true;                     }                     try                     {                         if (messageCompleted != null)                             messageCompleted(currentMessageInformation, exception);                     }                     catch (Exception e)                     {                         Trace.TraceError("An error occured when raising the MessageCompleted event, the error will NOT affect the message processing"+ e);                     }                     return;                 }                 catch (Exception e)                 {                     Trace.TraceWarning("Failed to complete transaction, moving to error mode"+ e);                     exception = e;                 }             }             try             {                 if (txDisposed == false && tx != null)                 {                     Trace.TraceWarning("Disposing transaction in error mode");                     tx.Dispose();                 }             }             catch (Exception e)             {                 Trace.TraceWarning("Failed to dispose of transaction in error mode."+ e);             }             if (message == null)                 return;                 try             {                 if (messageCompleted != null)                     messageCompleted(currentMessageInformation, exception);             }             catch (Exception e)             {                 Trace.TraceError("An error occured when raising the MessageCompleted event, the error will NOT affect the message processing"+ e);             }               try             {                 var copy = MessageProcessingFailure;                 if (copy != null)                     copy(currentMessageInformation, exception);             }             catch (Exception moduleException)             {                 Trace.TraceError("Module failed to process message failure: " + exception.Message+                                              moduleException);             }               if (messageQueue.IsTransactional == false)// put the item back in the queue             {                 messageQueue.Send(message);             }         }     You can see quite some processing and handling going on there. Yes this looks like real world code one did put together to make things work and he does not trust his callbacks. I guess these are event handlers which are optional and the delegates were extracted from an event to call them back later when necessary.  Lets see what the author of this code did intend:          private void HandleMessageCompletion(             TransactionHandler transactionHandler,             MessageCompletionHandler handler,             CurrentMessageInformation messageInfo,             ErrorCollector errors             )         {               // commit current pending transaction             transactionHandler.CallHandlerAndCommit(messageInfo, errors);               // We have an error for a null message do not send completion event             if (messageInfo.CurrentMessage == null)                 return;               // Send completion event in any case regardless of errors             handler.OnMessageCompleted(messageInfo, errors);               // put message back if queue is not transactional             transactionHandler.ResendMessageOnError(messageInfo.CurrentMessage, errors);         }   I did not bother to write the intention here again since the code should be pretty self explaining by now. I have used comments to explain the still nontrivial procedure step by step revealing the real intention about all this complex program flow. The original complexity of the problem domain does not go away but by applying the techniques of SRP (Single Responsibility Principle) and some functional style but we can abstract the necessary complexity away in useful abstractions which make it much easier to reason about it. Since most of the method seems to deal with errors I thought it was a good idea to encapsulate the error state of our current message in an ErrorCollector object which stores all exceptions in a list along with a description what the error all was about in the exception itself. We can log it later or not depending on the log level or whatever. It is really just a simple list that encapsulates the current error state.          class ErrorCollector          {              List<Exception> _Errors = new List<Exception>();                public void Add(Exception ex, string description)              {                  ex.Data["Description"] = description;                  _Errors.Add(ex);              }                public Exception Last              {                  get                  {                      return _Errors.LastOrDefault();                  }              }                public bool HasError              {                  get                  {                      return _Errors.Count > 0;                  }              }          }   Since the error state is global we have two choices to store a reference in the other helper objects (TransactionHandler and MessageCompletionHandler)or pass it to the method calls when necessary. I did chose the latter one because a second argument does not hurt and makes it easier to reason about the overall state while the helper objects remain stateless and immutable which makes the helper objects much easier to understand and as a bonus thread safe as well. This does not mean that the stored member variables are stateless or thread safe as well but at least our helper classes are it. Most of the complexity is located the transaction handling I consider as a separate responsibility that I delegate to the TransactionHandler which does nothing if there is no transaction or Call the Before Commit Handler Commit Transaction Dispose Transaction if commit did throw In fact it has a second responsibility to resend the message if the transaction did fail. I did see a good fit there since it deals with transaction failures.          class TransactionHandler          {              TransactionScope _Tx;              Action<CurrentMessageInformation> _BeforeCommit;              OpenedQueue _MessageQueue;                public TransactionHandler(TransactionScope tx, Action<CurrentMessageInformation> beforeCommit, OpenedQueue messageQueue)              {                  _Tx = tx;                  _BeforeCommit = beforeCommit;                  _MessageQueue = messageQueue;              }                public void CallHandlerAndCommit(CurrentMessageInformation currentMessageInfo, ErrorCollector errors)              {                  if (_Tx != null && !errors.HasError)                  {                      try                      {                          if (_BeforeCommit != null)                          {                              _BeforeCommit(currentMessageInfo);                          }                            _Tx.Complete();                          _Tx.Dispose();                      }                      catch (Exception ex)                      {                          errors.Add(ex, "Failed to complete transaction, moving to error mode");                          Trace.TraceWarning("Disposing transaction in error mode");                          try                          {                              _Tx.Dispose();                          }                          catch (Exception ex2)                          {                              errors.Add(ex2, "Failed to dispose of transaction in error mode.");                          }                      }                  }              }                public void ResendMessageOnError(Message message, ErrorCollector errors)              {                  if (errors.HasError && !_MessageQueue.IsTransactional)                  {                      _MessageQueue.Send(message);                  }              }          } If we need to change the handling in the future we have a much easier time to reason about our application flow than before. After we did complete our transaction and called our callback we can call the completion handler which is the main purpose of the HandleMessageCompletion method after all. The responsiblity o the MessageCompletionHandler is to call the completion callback and the failure callback when some error has occurred.            class MessageCompletionHandler          {              Action<CurrentMessageInformation, Exception> _MessageCompletedHandler;              Action<CurrentMessageInformation, Exception> _MessageProcessingFailure;                public MessageCompletionHandler(Action<CurrentMessageInformation, Exception> messageCompletedHandler,                                              Action<CurrentMessageInformation, Exception> messageProcessingFailure)              {                  _MessageCompletedHandler = messageCompletedHandler;                  _MessageProcessingFailure = messageProcessingFailure;              }                  public void OnMessageCompleted(CurrentMessageInformation currentMessageInfo, ErrorCollector errors)              {                  try                  {                      if (_MessageCompletedHandler != null)                      {                          _MessageCompletedHandler(currentMessageInfo, errors.Last);                      }                  }                  catch (Exception ex)                  {                      errors.Add(ex, "An error occured when raising the MessageCompleted event, the error will NOT affect the message processing");                  }                    if (errors.HasError)                  {                      SignalFailedMessage(currentMessageInfo, errors);                  }              }                void SignalFailedMessage(CurrentMessageInformation currentMessageInfo, ErrorCollector errors)              {                  try                  {                      if (_MessageProcessingFailure != null)                          _MessageProcessingFailure(currentMessageInfo, errors.Last);                  }                  catch (Exception moduleException)                  {                      errors.Add(moduleException, "Module failed to process message failure");                  }              }            }   If for some reason I did screw up the logic and we need to call the completion handler from our Transaction handler we can simple add to the CallHandlerAndCommit method a third argument to the MessageCompletionHandler and we are fine again. If the logic becomes even more complex and we need to ensure that the completed event is triggered only once we have now one place the completion handler to capture the state. During this refactoring I simple put things together that belong together and came up with useful abstractions. If you look at the original argument list of the HandleMessageCompletion method I have put many things together:   Original Arguments New Arguments Encapsulate Message message CurrentMessageInformation messageInfo         Message message TransactionScope tx Action<CurrentMessageInformation> beforeTransactionCommit OpenedQueue messageQueue TransactionHandler transactionHandler        TransactionScope tx        OpenedQueue messageQueue        Action<CurrentMessageInformation> beforeTransactionCommit Exception exception,             ErrorCollector errors Action<CurrentMessageInformation, Exception> messageCompleted MessageCompletionHandler handler          Action<CurrentMessageInformation, Exception> messageCompleted          Action<CurrentMessageInformation, Exception> messageProcessingFailure The reason is simple: Put the things that have relationships together and you will find nearly automatically useful abstractions. I hope this makes sense to you. If you see a way to make it even more simple you can show Ayende your improved version as well.

    Read the article

  • Problems with Android Fragment back stack

    - by DexterMoon
    I've got a massive problem with the way the android fragment backstack seems to work and would be most grateful for any help that is offered. Imagine you have 3 Fragments [1] [2] [3] I want the user to be able to navigate [1] > [2] > [3] but on the way back (pressing back button) [3] > [1]. As I would have imagined this would be accomplished by not calling addToBackStack(..) when creating the transaction that brings fragment [2] into the fragment holder defined in XML. The reality of this seems as though that if I dont want [2] to appear again when user presses back button on [3], I must not call addToBackStack in the transaction that shows fragment [3]. This seems completely counter-intuitive (perhaps coming from the iOS world). Anyway if i do it this way, when I go from [1] > [2] and press back I arrive back at [1] as expected. If I go [1] > [2] > [3] and then press back I jump back to [1] (as expected). Now the strange behavior happens when I try and jump to [2] again from [1]. First of all [3] is briefly displayed before [2] comes into view. If I press back at this point [3] is displayed, and if I press back once again the app exits. Can anyone help me to understand whats going on here? And here is the layout xml file for my main activity: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <LinearLayout xmlns:android="http://schemas.android.com/apk/res/android" android:layout_width="fill_parent" android:layout_height="fill_parent" android:orientation="vertical" > <fragment android:id="@+id/headerFragment" android:layout_width="match_parent" android:layout_height="wrap_content" class="com.fragment_test.FragmentControls" > <!-- Preview: layout=@layout/details --> </fragment> <FrameLayout android:id="@+id/detailFragment" android:layout_width="match_parent" android:layout_height="fill_parent" /> Update This is the code I'm using to build by nav heirarchy Fragment frag; FragmentTransaction transaction; //Create The first fragment [1], add it to the view, BUT Dont add the transaction to the backstack frag = new Fragment1(); transaction = getSupportFragmentManager().beginTransaction(); transaction.replace(R.id.detailFragment, frag); transaction.commit(); //Create the second [2] fragment, add it to the view and add the transaction that replaces the first fragment to the backstack frag = new Fragment2(); transaction = getSupportFragmentManager().beginTransaction(); transaction.replace(R.id.detailFragment, frag); transaction.addToBackStack(null); transaction.commit(); //Create third fragment frag = new Fragment3(); transaction = getSupportFragmentManager().beginTransaction(); transaction.replace(R.id.detailFragment, frag); transaction.commit(); //END OF SETUP CODE------------------------- //NOW: //Press back once and then issue the following code: frag = new Fragment2(); transaction = getSupportFragmentManager().beginTransaction(); transaction.replace(R.id.detailFragment, frag); transaction.addToBackStack(null); transaction.commit(); //Now press back again and you end up at fragment [3] not [1] Many thanks

    Read the article

  • Transactions not working for SubSonic under Oracle?

    - by Fervelas
    The following code sample works perfectly under SQL Server 2005: using (TransactionScope ts = new TransactionScope()) { using (SharedDbConnectionScope scope = new SharedDbConnectionScope()) { MyTable t = new MyTable(); t.Name = "Test"; t.Comments = "Comments 123"; t.Save(); ts.Complete(); } } But under Oracle 10g it throws a "ORA-02089: COMMIT is not allowed in a subordinate session" error. If I only execute the code inside the SharedDbConnectionScope block then everything works OK, but obviously I won't be able to execute operations under a transaction, thus risking data corruption. This is only a small sample of what my real application does. I'm not sure as to what may be causing this behavior; anyone out there care to shed some light on this issue please? Many thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • close fails on database connections (managed connection cleanup fails) in websphere 7 but not in web

    - by mete
    I have a simple method (used in a web application through servlets) that gets a connection from a JNDI name and issues a select statement (get connection, issue select, return result, close the connection etc. in finally). Due to other methods in the application the connection is set as autocommit=false. This method works normally in websphere 6.1 as well as in glassfish and weblogic. However, in websphere 7, it receives cleanup failed error when I close the connection because, it says, the connection is still in a transaction. Because I was not updating anything I did not commit or rollback the connection in this method (which can be wrong). If I add commit before closing the connection, it works. My question is why it works in websphere 6.1 (and other containers) and why not in websphere 7 ? What can be the cause of this difference ?

    Read the article

  • C# - Rollback SqlTransaction in catch block - Problem with object accessability

    - by Marks
    Hi there. I've got a problem, and all articles or examples i found seem to not care about it. I want to do some database actions in a transaction. What i want to do is very similar to most examples: using (SqlConnection Conn = new SqlConnection(_ConnectionString)) { try { Conn.Open(); SqlTransaction Trans = Conn.BeginTransaction(); using (SqlCommand Com = new SqlCommand(ComText, Conn)) { /* DB work */ } } catch (Exception Ex) { Trans.Rollback(); return -1; } } But the problem is, that the SqlTransaction Trans is declared inside the try block. So it is not accessable in the catch() block. Most examples just do Conn.Open() and Conn.BeginTransaction() before the try block. But i think thats a bit risky, since both can throw multiple exceptions. Am I wrong, or do most people just ignore this risk? Whats the best solution to be able to rollback, if an exception happens. Thanks in advance, Marks

    Read the article

  • What sql server isolation level should I choose to prevent concurrent reads?

    - by Brian Bolton
    I have the following transaction: SQL inserts a 1 new record into a table called tbl_document SQL deletes all records matching a criteria in another table called tbl_attachment SQL inserts multiple records into the tbl_attachment Until this transaction finishes, I don't want others users to be aware of the (1) new records in tbl_document, (2) deleted records in tbl_attachment, and (3) modified records in tbl_attachment. Would Read Committed Isolation be the correct isolation level?

    Read the article

  • How to configure LocalSessionFactoryBean to release connections after transaction end?

    - by peter
    I am testing an application (Spring 2.5, Hibernate 3.5.0 Beta, Atomikos 3.6.2, and Postgreql 8.4.2) with the configuration for the DAO listed below. The problem that I see is that the pool of 10 connections with the dataSource gets exhausted after the 10's transaction. I know 'hibernate.connection.release_mode' has no effect unless the session is obtained with openSession rather then using a contextual session. I am wandering if anyone has found a way to configure the LocalSessionFactoryBean to release connections after any transaction. Thank you Peter <bean id="dataSource" class="com.atomikos.jdbc.AtomikosDataSourceBean" init-method="init" destroy-method="close"> <property name="uniqueResourceName"><value>XADBMS</value></property> <property name="xaDataSourceClassName"> <value>org.postgresql.xa.PGXADataSource</value> </property> <property name="xaProperties"> <props> <prop key="databaseName">${jdbc.name}</prop> <prop key="serverName">${jdbc.server}</prop> <prop key="portNumber">${jdbc.port}</prop> <prop key="user">${jdbc.username}</prop> <prop key="password">${jdbc.password}</prop> </props> </property> <property name="poolSize"><value>10</value></property> </bean> <bean id="sessionFactory" class="org.springframework.orm.hibernate3.LocalSessionFactoryBean"> <property name="dataSource"> <ref bean="dataSource" /> </property> <property name="mappingResources"> <list> <value>Abc.hbm.xml</value> </list> </property> <property name="hibernateProperties"> <props> <prop key="hibernate.dialect">org.hibernate.dialect.PostgreSQLDialect</prop> <prop key="hibernate.show_sql">on</prop> <prop key="hibernate.format_sql">true</prop> <prop key="hibernate.connection.isolation">3</prop> <prop key="hibernate.current_session_context_class">jta</prop> <prop key="hibernate.transaction.factory_class">org.hibernate.transaction.JTATransactionFactory</prop> <prop key="hibernate.transaction.manager_lookup_class">com.atomikos.icatch.jta.hibernate3.TransactionManagerLookup</prop> <prop key="hibernate.connection.release_mode">auto</prop> <prop key="hibernate.transaction.auto_close_session">true</prop> </props> </property> </bean> <!-- Transaction definition here --> <bean id="userTransactionService" class="com.atomikos.icatch.config.UserTransactionServiceImp" init-method="init" destroy-method="shutdownForce"> <constructor-arg> <props> <prop key="com.atomikos.icatch.service"> com.atomikos.icatch.standalone.UserTransactionServiceFactory </prop> </props> </constructor-arg> </bean> <!-- Construct Atomikos UserTransactionManager, needed to configure Spring --> <bean id="AtomikosTransactionManager" class="com.atomikos.icatch.jta.UserTransactionManager" init-method="init" destroy-method="close" depends-on="userTransactionService"> <property name="forceShutdown" value="false" /> </bean> <!-- Also use Atomikos UserTransactionImp, needed to configure Spring --> <bean id="AtomikosUserTransaction" class="com.atomikos.icatch.jta.UserTransactionImp" depends-on="userTransactionService"> <property name="transactionTimeout" value="300" /> </bean> <!-- Configure the Spring framework to use JTA transactions from Atomikos --> <bean id="txManager" class="org.springframework.transaction.jta.JtaTransactionManager" depends-on="userTransactionService"> <property name="transactionManager" ref="AtomikosTransactionManager" /> <property name="userTransaction" ref="AtomikosUserTransaction" /> </bean> <!-- the transactional advice (what 'happens'; see the <aop:advisor/> bean below) --> <tx:advice id="txAdvice" transaction-manager="txManager"> <tx:attributes> <!-- all methods starting with 'get' are read-only --> <tx:method name="get*" read-only="true" propagation="REQUIRED"/> <!-- other methods use the default transaction settings (see below) --> <tx:method name="*" propagation="REQUIRED"/> </tx:attributes> </tx:advice> <aop:config> <aop:advisor pointcut="execution(* *.*.AbcDao.*(..))" advice-ref="txAdvice"/> </aop:config> <!-- DAO objects --> <bean id="abcDao" class="test.dao.impl.HibernateAbcDao" scope="singleton"> <property name="sessionFactory" ref="sessionFactory"/> </bean>

    Read the article

  • NHibernate transaction management in ASP.NET MVC - how should it be done?

    - by adrin
    I am writing a simple ASP.NET MVC using session per request and transaction per request patterns (custom HttpModule). It seems to work properly, but.. the performance is terrible (a simple page loads ~7 seconds). For every http request, graphical resources incuding (all images on the site) a transaction is created and that seems to delay the loading times (without the transactions loading times per one image are ~1-10 ms with transactions they are over 1 second). What is the proper way to manage transactions in ASP.NET MVC + NH stack? When i've put all transactions into my repository methods, for some obscure reasons I got 'implicit transactions' warning in NHProf (the SQL statements were executed outside transaction, even that in code session.Save()/Update()/etc methods were invoked within transaction 'using' scope and before transaction.Commit() call) BTW are implicit transactions really bad?

    Read the article

  • Consolidate loan, purchase & sale tables into one transaction table.

    - by Frank Computer
    INFORMIX-SE with ISQL 7.3: I have separate tables for Loan, Purchase & Sales transactions. Each tables rows are joined to their respective customer rows by: customer.id [serial] = loan.foreign_id [integer]; = purchase.foreign_id [integer]; = sale.foreign_id [integer]; I would like to consolidate the three tables into one table called "transaction", where a column: transaction.trx_type char(1) {L=Loan, P=Purchase, S=Sale} identifies the transaction type. Each transaction will be assigned a unique transaction number [serial]. Is this a good idea or is it better to keep them in separate tables? Storage space is not a concern, I think it would be easier programming & user-wise to have all types of transactions under one table, whenever possible. This implies denormalization.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >