geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ashish Jain <ashja...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: exposing exceptions that caused a rollback
Date Thu, 24 Feb 2011 10:15:40 GMT
Hi Djencks/Dblevins,

As we had discussed earlier about this issue and the possible patch. It
seems we cannot use javax.transaction.
TransactionRolledbackException.initCause(e) instead there is another class
with in openEJB
org.apache.openejb.core.transaction.TransactionRolledbackException which can
be utilized. So can we go ahead
and use this exception class. Are there any reasons why we had not used this
class earlier?
 For your reference
have a look at line no 146 in  the class
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/tags/openejb-3.0.3/container/openejb-core/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/core/transaction/TransactionPolicy.java

Once I use this class I see better logging however it stills seems
incomplete. What can we do to get more logging in this case?

Snippets of log from my eclipse when I run the client

Caused by: java.lang.Exception: Transaction has timed out
    at
org.apache.geronimo.transaction.manager.TransactionImpl.commit(TransactionImpl.java:261)
    ... 18 more

Snippets of log from my geronimo.log

2011-02-24 14:35:50,625 DEBUG [OpenEJB] finished invoking method create.
Return
value:proxy=com.test.ibm.TestTransactionInterface;deployment=test4/TestTransaction;pk=205efedb35aa1fff:ef95222:12e56ea419b:-7fe4
2011-02-24 14:35:50,640 DEBUG [jndi] JNDI REQUEST:
JNDI_LOOKUP:null:TestTransactionRemote -- RESPONSE:
JNDI_BUSINESS_OBJECT:STATEFUL:test4/TestTransaction:com.test.ibm.TestTransactionInterface:205efedb35aa1fff:ef95222:12e56ea419b:-7fe4
2011-02-24 14:35:50,718 INFO  [Transaction] TX RequiresNew: Suspended
transaction null
2011-02-24 14:35:50,718 INFO  [Transaction] TX RequiresNew: Started
transaction org.apache.geronimo.transaction.manager.TransactionImpl@f5472d
2011-02-24 14:35:50,750 INFO  [Runtime] Starting OpenJPA 1.2.2
2011-02-24 14:35:50,843 INFO  [JDBC] Using dictionary class
"org.apache.openjpa.jdbc.sql.DerbyDictionary" (Apache Derby 10.5.3.0 -
(802917) ,Apache Derby Embedded JDBC Driver 10.5.3.0 - (802917)).
2011-02-24 14:36:02,015 INFO  [Transaction] TX RequiresNew: Committing
transaction org.apache.geronimo.transaction.manager.TransactionImpl@f5472d
2011-02-24 14:36:02,109 INFO  [Transaction] The transaction has been rolled
back rather than commited: Unable to commit: transaction marked for rollback
2011-02-24 14:36:02,109 INFO  [Transaction] TX RequiresNew: No transaction
to resume
2011-02-24 14:36:02,109 DEBUG [ejb] EJB REQUEST:
EJB_OBJECT.BUSINESS_METHOD:test4/TestTransaction:firstMethod:205efedb35aa1fff:ef95222:12e56ea419b:-7fe4
-- RESPONSE:
EJB_APP_EXCEPTION:org.apache.openejb.core.transaction.TransactionRolledbackException:
Transaction was rolled back, presumably because setRollbackOnly was called
during a synchronization: Unable to commit: transaction marked for rollback


Thanks
Ashish




On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 9:26 AM, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>wrote:

>
> On Feb 23, 2011, at 7:35 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> >
> > On Feb 22, 2011, at 4:37 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> >
> >> cf
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-4576
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENEJB-1091
> >>
> >> For a long time we've known of this problem where an exception thrown by
> a transaction synchronization that causes a transaction to be marked for
> rollback only is lost.  When the user or openejb tries to commit the
> transaction the transaction manager throws a RollbackException which
> currently doesn't have any information about the original exception.
> >>
> >> People have complained about this for a long time.... now we're trying
> to fix it.
> >>
> >> There are two parts AFAICT.  I think in openejb we just need to take the
> TransactionRolledBackException we are currently throwing and call initCause
> with the RollbackException from the tm.  In TransactionPolicy this would be
> something like
> >>
> >>       } catch (RollbackException e) {
> >>
> >>           txLogger.info("The transaction has been rolled back rather
> than commited: " + e.getMessage());
> >>           // TODO can't set initCause on a
> TransactionRolledbackException, update the convertException and related code
> to handle something else
> >>           Throwable txe = new
> javax.transaction.TransactionRolledbackException("Transaction was rolled
> back, presumably because setRollbackOnly was called during a
> synchronization: "+e.getMessage());
> >> --            throw new ApplicationException(txe);
> >> ++            throw new ApplicationException(txe.initCause(e);
> >>
> >> In the transaction implementation we need to keep track of the exception
> that caused us to mark rollback only and then use it as the cause of the
> RollbackException, e.g.
> >>
> >> private Exception markRollbackCause;
> >>
> >> ...
> >> RollbackException rollbackException = new RollbackException("Unable to
> commit: transaction marked for rollback");
> >> if (markRollbackCause != null) {
> >> rollbackException.initCause(markRollbackCause);
> >> }
> >> throw rollbackException;
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >>   private void markRollbackCause(Exception e) {
> >>       if (markRollbackCause == null) {
> >>           markRollbackCause = e;
> >>       }
> >>   }
> >>
> >> (this tm code is committed in rev 1073479 in my sandbox tm)
> >>
> >> At the moment if a sync throws an exception, we keep calling the other
> syncs, and it would be possible for other ways of marking rollback only due
> to an exception to occur more than once as well.  So there's a question as
> to whether we should only record the first cause of rollback only or if we
> should keep track of a list of causes.  The code above only tracks the first
>  cause.  I'm really not sure what to think about this and would appreciate
> comments.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >
> > Great to get more data captured. So, I'm all for it...
> >
> > Personally, I would think the *first* cause will almost always be the
> most important information a user would want... Any situations where
> subsequent exceptions are going to yield valuable information? Or will they
> mostly generate noise?
>
> Well, since the known cause of this problem is openjpa flushes during the
> tx syncs, it would be entirely possible to have more than one if there is
> more than one persistence unit/persistence context involved in the
> transaction. So I'd guess it's quite uncommon but entirely possible.  It's
> probably only an hour or so more work to implement something for more
> exception, dunno how much testing we'd want to do.
>
> I don't know if there are likely to be additional "side effect" exceptions
> caused by a particular exception.  Offhand I can't think of any.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> >
> > --kevan
>
>

Mime
View raw message