jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Martin Schreiber (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (JCR-1554) StaleItemStateException with distributed transactions
Date Wed, 04 Feb 2009 20:17:59 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-1554?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12670446#action_12670446

Martin Schreiber commented on JCR-1554:

It might be that the following explanation is not as it really is, so feel free to correct

An ItemState might have an overlayedState. What I have seen from debugging with lots of logging
is that an itemState could have an overlayedState and this overlayedState could also have
an overlayedState and so on. 
If there is a e.g. a property change the ItemStateManger(s) gets "informed" and the "stateModified"
method is called. 
In transactions the the XAItemStateManager's (which is a sub class of the LocalItemStateManager)
"stateModified" method is called.
If the state already exists the "pull()" method is called on that state (ItemState.pull()).
The idea of the pull method is to sync up the modification counter with the overlayedState.
And here is the issue IMHO because it is only done "one layer down" and not top down. 
If I saw it correctly, with the provided test class, setting a property the first time will
end up in one ItemState, setting it the 2nd time you will have an itemState with an overlayedState,
calling it the 3rd time, you have itemState->overlayedState->overlayedState. If than
"pull()" is called to sync up the modCount, it is only done with the itemState->overlayedState
and not with the itemState->overlayedState->overlayedState....thats IMHO the reason
why you see it at the 3rd time and not before. 

To cut a long story short, here what i changed:

ItemState.java (line 152ff): 


    synchronized void pull() {
        ItemState state = overlayedState;
        if (state != null) {
            // sync modification count
            copy(state, true);

my modification:

    synchronized void pull() {
        ItemState state = overlayedState;
        if (state != null) {
            // sync modification count top down
            if (state.isConnected()) {
            copy(state, true);

With that change I was able to a) build jackrabbit and b) run the provided TestNG successfully
without the RollbackException (for both tests, setting the item property and deleting a node).

Jackrabbit guys, could you please take a look at my proposal.


> StaleItemStateException with distributed transactions
> -----------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: JCR-1554
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-1554
>             Project: Jackrabbit Content Repository
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: jackrabbit-core, transactions
>    Affects Versions: 1.4, core 1.4.2
>         Environment: WinXP, jdk1.5.0_14, jboss_4.2.2.GA, jackrabbit 1.4.2, spring 2.5.3,
spring-modules-jcr 0.8 (for integration of jackrabbit with spring)
> PM of repository: OraclePersistenceManager; DB: Oracle
>            Reporter: Sven Rieckhoff
>         Attachments: jackrabbit-tx-bug.zip
> There seams to be a serious bug in jackrabbit when used in distributed transactions.
It does not occur with local transactions! And it seams to be related to JCR-566.
> There are 2 scenarios where a StaleItemStateException occurs reproducible that causes
transactions to fail. All my operations (implemented in a custom ServiceBean) such as setProperty()
or deleteNode() run in separate transactions. The transactions are configured through Spring
Annotations (@Transactional).
> Scenario A (setProperty):
> (1) multiple setProperty() with same property name on the same node (newly created or
already existent)
> => With the 3. setProperty() (and sometimes also the 5.), a StaleItemStateException
for the property state is raised when the transaction is commited. Following setProperty invocations
will not fail!
> Scenario B (deleteNode):
> (1) iterate 10 times:
> (1.1) create new node n and a subnode for n
> (1.2) delete node n
> => Deletion of node n raises a StaleItemStateException for node n in iteration 1,
3 and (6 or 7), when the related transaction is commited. Following deletions of node n will
also fail with a predictable pattern.
> The Exception trace for scenario A (it's the same for scenario B, with one difference:
StaleItemStateException is raised for the node and not for the property):
> org.springframework.transaction.UnexpectedRollbackException: JTA transaction unexpectedly
rolled back (maybe due to a timeout); nested exception is javax.transaction.RollbackException:
Error during one-phase commit
> 	at org.springframework.transaction.jta.JtaTransactionManager.doCommit(JtaTransactionManager.java:1031)
> 	at org.springframework.transaction.support.AbstractPlatformTransactionManager.processCommit(AbstractPlatformTransactionManager.java:709)
> 	at org.springframework.transaction.support.AbstractPlatformTransactionManager.commit(AbstractPlatformTransactionManager.java:678)
> 	at org.springframework.transaction.interceptor.TransactionAspectSupport.commitTransactionAfterReturning(TransactionAspectSupport.java:321)
> 	at org.springframework.transaction.interceptor.TransactionInterceptor.invoke(TransactionInterceptor.java:116)
> 	at org.springframework.aop.framework.ReflectiveMethodInvocation.proceed(ReflectiveMethodInvocation.java:171)
> 	at org.springframework.aop.framework.JdkDynamicAopProxy.invoke(JdkDynamicAopProxy.java:204)
> 	at $Proxy9.setNodeProperty(Unknown Source)
> 	at de.zeb.control.prototype.jrTxBug.test.TestJackrabbitTxBug.testTransactionBug001(TestJackrabbitTxBug.java:97)
> 	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
> 	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
> 	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
> 	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
> 	at org.testng.internal.MethodHelper.invokeMethod(MethodHelper.java:580)
> 	at org.testng.internal.Invoker.invokeMethod(Invoker.java:478)
> 	at org.testng.internal.Invoker.invokeTestMethod(Invoker.java:607)
> 	at org.testng.internal.Invoker.invokeTestMethods(Invoker.java:874)
> 	at org.testng.internal.TestMethodWorker.invokeTestMethods(TestMethodWorker.java:125)
> 	at org.testng.internal.TestMethodWorker.run(TestMethodWorker.java:109)
> 	at org.testng.TestRunner.runWorkers(TestRunner.java:689)
> 	at org.testng.TestRunner.privateRun(TestRunner.java:566)
> 	at org.testng.TestRunner.run(TestRunner.java:466)
> 	at org.testng.SuiteRunner.runTest(SuiteRunner.java:301)
> 	at org.testng.SuiteRunner.runSequentially(SuiteRunner.java:296)
> 	at org.testng.SuiteRunner.privateRun(SuiteRunner.java:276)
> 	at org.testng.SuiteRunner.run(SuiteRunner.java:191)
> 	at org.testng.TestNG.createAndRunSuiteRunners(TestNG.java:808)
> 	at org.testng.TestNG.runSuitesLocally(TestNG.java:776)
> 	at org.testng.TestNG.run(TestNG.java:701)
> 	at org.testng.remote.RemoteTestNG.run(RemoteTestNG.java:73)
> 	at org.testng.remote.RemoteTestNG.main(RemoteTestNG.java:124)
> Caused by: javax.transaction.RollbackException: Error during one-phase commit
> 	at org.apache.geronimo.transaction.manager.TransactionImpl.commit(TransactionImpl.java:281)
> 	at org.apache.geronimo.transaction.manager.TransactionManagerImpl.commit(TransactionManagerImpl.java:143)
> 	at org.apache.geronimo.transaction.context.InheritableTransactionContext.complete(InheritableTransactionContext.java:196)
> 	at org.apache.geronimo.transaction.context.InheritableTransactionContext.commit(InheritableTransactionContext.java:146)
> 	at org.apache.geronimo.transaction.context.OnlineUserTransaction.commit(OnlineUserTransaction.java:80)
> 	at org.jencks.factory.UserTransactionFactoryBean$GeronimoUserTransaction.commit(UserTransactionFactoryBean.java:118)
> 	at org.springframework.transaction.jta.JtaTransactionManager.doCommit(JtaTransactionManager.java:1028)
> 	... 30 more
> Caused by: javax.transaction.xa.XAException
> 	at org.apache.jackrabbit.core.TransactionContext.prepare(TransactionContext.java:155)
> 	at org.apache.jackrabbit.core.XASessionImpl.commit(XASessionImpl.java:337)
> 	at org.apache.jackrabbit.jca.TransactionBoundXAResource.commit(TransactionBoundXAResource.java:39)
> 	at org.apache.geronimo.transaction.manager.WrapperNamedXAResource.commit(WrapperNamedXAResource.java:47)
> 	at org.apache.geronimo.transaction.manager.TransactionImpl.commit(TransactionImpl.java:272)
> 	... 36 more
> Caused by: org.apache.jackrabbit.core.TransactionException: Unable to prepare transaction.
> 	at org.apache.jackrabbit.core.state.XAItemStateManager.prepare(XAItemStateManager.java:150)
> 	at org.apache.jackrabbit.core.TransactionContext.prepare(TransactionContext.java:138)
> 	... 40 more
> Caused by: org.apache.jackrabbit.core.state.StaleItemStateException: bef3c056-bc91-4195-a35c-aa184182b5ad/{}TEST_PROPERTY
has been modified externally
> 	at org.apache.jackrabbit.core.state.SharedItemStateManager$Update.begin(SharedItemStateManager.java:620)
> 	at org.apache.jackrabbit.core.state.SharedItemStateManager.beginUpdate(SharedItemStateManager.java:843)
> 	at org.apache.jackrabbit.core.state.XAItemStateManager.prepare(XAItemStateManager.java:144)
> 	... 41 more
> When debugging into jackrabbit you will see, that the cause of the StaleItemStateException
is, that the local state und the overlayed state differ in the value of the 'modCount' attribute:
modCount of local state is lower than modCount of overlayed state. Perhaps its a state caching
> I'm attaching a simple java application configured with maven and ready to run standalone.
The JCA container of JBoss is therefore replaced with jencks in order to support distributed
transactions. The configured repository uses the InMemPersistenceManager. Both scenarios are
implemented in a TestNG - test, that catches the occuring TransactionExceptions and prints
out the stacktrace. Therefore you will see the exceptions, but the tests will not fail.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

View raw message