[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       turbine-torque-user
Subject:    AW: Torque, Transactions and Container (Bea)
From:       "Vitzethum, Daniel" <Daniel.Vitzethum () gigatronik ! com>
Date:       2005-11-25 11:40:11
Message-ID: 5EE5137D79A3CA45970354F512B3F3E339E92B () m-ex1 ! gt ! local
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi Thomas,

thanks for your answer.

> Torque does not have its own transaction mechanism, it uses jdbc
> transactions.

Yes, I'm aware of this. But Torque implements a kind of tx behavior
when a method like doInsert() is called without passing a connection.

In these methods in BasePeer, always a COMMIT or ROLLBACK is executed -
what we don't want as the Container, Bea here, should handle the Tx.

The bahavior of the container is configured in the deployment
descriptor,
of course, normally on business method level. A transaction type may be
"RequiresNew", "Mandatory" and so on.

> The transactional behaviour is different for different databases.
> E.g. for oracle, the first select/update/insert... command
automatically
> starts a transaction, whatever you do.

I cannot see that, though. I don't find a location in Torque's code
where
the Transction is handled dependent on the adapter or so. Where do I
have
to look?


That is our solution by now:

As generated BasePeers call statical methods on their superclass
BasePeer
_directly_ (e.g. "BasePeer.doInsert(...)"), I wasn't able to hook in a
class
overriding some of BasePeers behavior.

So I changed the "Peer.vm" template so that it does _not_ call BasePeer
in its
e.g. doInsert(Criteria) method, but my base peer class as configured in
the
schema.xml.

So, I can override BasePeer and implement my own transaction behavior in
the
methods that don't take a connection.

The benefit: I don't have to care about fetching and returning
connections in
the countless generated Peer classes. I just can use doInsert(Criteria)
or save()
like used to.

The thing I don't like: I had to change the torque-gen.jar. Besides
that, the
changes were very minor but effective.


My question, however:

has anyone used Torque with container managed transactions before? And
if yes:
how?


Bye,

Daniel

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: torque-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: torque-user-help@db.apache.org


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]