Re: [eclipselink-users] Questions about Spring @Transactional annotatio

[Tim Hollosy <hollosyt@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Mohsen,
I'll have to weigh which method makes more sense.

./tch



On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Mohsen Saboorian <mohsens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Putting @Transactional over you service/dao class does this. Calling a
> @Transactional method from another @Transactional method will join the
> two transactions by default.
>
> Mohsen.
>
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Tim Hollosy <hollosyt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Thanks, that makes sense. I guess if I'm doing a set of operations on
>> multiple entities in a transaction it should probably be in it's own
>> DAO method just for business rules sake.
>>
>> I'm wondering if I can mark my whole class as being inside a
>> transaction rather than a single method....
>>
>> ./tch
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 8:37 AM, James Sutherland <jamesssss@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm no Spring expert, but assuming it behaves the same way as SessionBeans,
>>> each transaction will have a new EntityManager.  So inside your delete, you
>>> will need to re-find the object by its id then delete it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> tch wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ok,
>>>> So I've finally gotten a few free seconds to start looking at Spring
>>>> and JPA/EclipseLink again, and have started to run into some curious
>>>> things.
>>>>
>>>> In this example I have a DAO that has 2 methods and an EM injected like
>>>> this:
>>>> @PersistenceContext
>>>> private EntityManager entityManager;
>>>>
>>>> @Transactional(readOnly=true)
>>>> find(..)
>>>>
>>>> @Transactional(propagation = Propagation.REQUIRED)
>>>> delete(Object entity)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So in my controller I inject the dao, then do something like this:
>>>>
>>>> Entity e = dao.find(..)
>>>> dao.delete(e);
>>>>
>>>> EclipseLink cries and says it can't delete an unmanaged entity :/
>>>>
>>>> So apparently I'm confused about what exactly is happening when I use
>>>> this @Transactional annotation. Admittedly I didn't read the docs too
>>>> thoroughly, so I'm not surprised. My options are to do the find/delete
>>>> in one @Transactional method or call a merge inside my dao's delete
>>>> method. But I don't understand why I'm getting a (different?) em even
>>>> though I'm using the same dao, in the same request. Does
>>>> @Transactional do something funky with the em? Does it not guarantee
>>>> the same one?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks and don't be afraid to reply with RTFM :)
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> eclipselink-users mailing list
>>>> eclipselink-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-users
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----
>>> ---
>>> http://wiki.eclipse.org/User:James.sutherland.oracle.com James Sutherland
>>> http://www.eclipse.org/eclipselink/
>>>  EclipseLink ,  http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/ias/toplink/
>>> TopLink
>>> Wiki:  http://wiki.eclipse.org/EclipseLink EclipseLink ,
>>> http://wiki.oracle.com/page/TopLink TopLink
>>> Forums:  http://forums.oracle.com/forums/forum.jspa?forumID=48 TopLink ,
>>> http://www.nabble.com/EclipseLink-f26430.html EclipseLink
>>> Book:  http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Java_Persistence Java Persistence
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Questions-about-Spring-%40Transactional-annotation-and-EM%27s-tp21933061p21933759.html
>>> Sent from the EclipseLink - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> eclipselink-users mailing list
>>> eclipselink-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-users
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> eclipselink-users mailing list
>> eclipselink-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-users
>>
> _______________________________________________
> eclipselink-users mailing list
> eclipselink-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-users
>