Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Separated UnitOfWork and EntityManager #985

Closed
wants to merge 7 commits into from

Conversation

jjantunen
Copy link

This modification uses work of Andreas Viedma
(andresviedma:unitofwork-annotation).

Current solution of the EntityManager doesn't robustly support use of
Transaction scoped EntityManager.If EntityManager is injected or
emProvider.get() is called outside of the Transactional annotation,
then this will lead to never closed EntityManager. (Current solution
would need boilerplate UnitOfWork.end() calls). This behaviour is also
different than in Guice 2.0 with warp-persist, where Transaction scoped
EntityManager works.

With this modification UnitOfWork and EntityManager are separated.
This means that getting of EntityManager doesn't start UnitOfWork.
If EntityManager scope needs to be different than transaction,
UnitOfWork has to be explicitly started.UnitOfWork can be started
with annotation or explicitly calling begin(). Annotation supports
nested UnitOfWorks. If begin is called directly from UnitOfWork then
it requires direct call to end() to end UnitOfWork.End call will always
end UnitOfWork.

Resolves issues: #739, #947

andresviedma and others added 6 commits October 25, 2015 22:47
This modification continues work of Andreas Viedma
(andresviedma:unitofwork-annotation).

Current solution of the EntityManager doesn't robustly support use of
Transaction scoped EntityManager.If EntityManager is injected or
emProvider.get() is called outside of the Transactional annotation,
then this will lead to never closed EntityManager. (Current solution
would need boilerplate UnitOfWork.end() calls). This behaviour is also
different than in Guice 2.0 with warp-persist, where Transaction scoped
EntityManager works.

With this commit UnitOfWork and EntityManager are separated.
This means that getting of EntityManager doesn't start UnitOfWork.
If EntityManager scope needs to be different than transaction,
UnitOfWork has to be explicitly started.UnitOfWork can be started
with annotation or explicitly calling begin(). Annotation supports
nested UnitOfWorks. If begin is called directly from UnitOfWork then
it requires direct call to end() to end UnitOfWork.End call will always
end UnitOfWork.

Resolves issues: google#739, google#947
@googlebot
Copy link

We found a Contributor License Agreement for you (the sender of this pull request) and all commit authors, but as best as we can tell these commits were authored by someone else. If that's the case, please add them to this pull request and have them confirm that they're okay with these commits being contributed to Google. If we're mistaken and you did author these commits, just reply here to confirm.

If there is existing entitymanager when the unitofwork is started then
existing entitymanager is cleared.
copybara-service bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 21, 2023
…because it leads to leaks. Fixes #739, fixes #997, fixes #730, fixes #985, fixes #959, fixes #731. This also adds an optional Options to the JpaPersistModule constructor, if users wish to use the legacy behavior. This is a breaking change, but to a better default value. Users who want to keep the dangerous form can opt back in with the options.

PiperOrigin-RevId: 525852009
copybara-service bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 21, 2023
…because it leads to leaks. Fixes #739, fixes #997, fixes #730, fixes #985, fixes #959, fixes #731. This also adds an optional Options to the JpaPersistModule constructor, if users wish to use the legacy behavior. This is a breaking change, but to a better default value. Users who want to keep the dangerous form can opt back in with the options.

PiperOrigin-RevId: 525852009
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants