cayenne-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Kienenberger <>
Subject Re: Change audit framework
Date Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:21:36 GMT
I think the only thing missing from this approach is a guarantee that
the audit data is committed in the same transaction as the data being

This is a requirement for my various projects.  If the audit data
cannot be committed, then the changes cannot be committed.

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Andrus Adamchik <> wrote:
> It appears that in mine and everybody else's work capturing object changes is a must-have.
We have these discussions on user@ periodically, and 70% of my clients have one or another
implementation in their apps. So maybe we can do something about it in Cayenne. The first
attempt at it is already available since 3.1 [1]. Still AuditableFilter is more like an example
to follow, than a drop-in implementation. So everyone keeps coming back with that same question
about audit.
> The challenge here is spare the user from the change analysis, but allow to customize
a few extra things:
> 1. the mechanism where this data is stored (can be saved in the DB, broadcast via MQ,
stored in Kafka, etc.)
> 2. additional contents of the audit trail (security context, transaction id, client IP
address, etc.)
> 3. filtering entities we want to audit from other data changes.
> I think I'll be able to open-source a new version of the AuditableFilter that is pretty
close to this. It emits a stream of changes as JSON:
> {"ts":1427090346831,"by":"someuser","serverIP":"","op":"UPDATE","id":"MyEntity:954619","changes":{"email":["",""]}}
> The stream is a complete change log that doesn't lose anything. This includes all possible
object graph operations (create, update, delete, relationship changes, ID changes). The object
model behind this framework is quite reusable. Filtering can be done either with entity annotations,
or straight on the change object stream. STDOUT can be the default storage (and JSON - the
default format for that), and we let the users to override it.
> Does it sound like something you can use to rewrite your current audit framework?
> Comments?
> Andrus
> [1]

View raw message