the JPA optimistic locking doesn't throw an OptimisticLockException/StaleStateException where i would expect it.
Here is my setup:
i am using spring boot with spring data envers. So my repository are versioned, which should not influence the optimistic locking behaviour. In my entities the property version (Long) is annotated with #Version. My application consists of 3 layers:
persistence-layer
business-layer
transfer-layer
To map objects between the layers i use mapstruct.
When a request is received by the controller in the transfer-layer, the JSON-Payload is mapped to an business-layer object to process business rules to it. The version is always mapped through the whole lifecycle.
When i reach the persistence-layer, i use the ID of the object to find the corresponding entity in my database. The signature of my save-method looks like this:
#Transactional
public Entity saveEntity(BOEntity boEntity){
Entity e = entityRepository.findById(boEntity.getId());
entityMapper.updateEntity(boEntity, e);
entityRepository.save(e);
}
When the same entity is loaded by my clients, (e.g. two browser-tabs) each of them has the same version of the entity. Changes are made and saved in both clients.
The version is contained in the boEntity object and mapped into the entity.
Due to the findById call the entity is managed. The entitymanager will try to merge the entity and succeeds in both requests to do so.
The state of the entity of the first request is merged (with version 1). Hibernate calls the executeUpdate method and writes to the database. The version is increased to 2.
Now the second request delivers the entity in the former state with version 1. The save-method is called and the entity is retrieved from the persistence-context. It has the version 2, which is overwritten by the boEntity object with version 1.
When the entityManager now merges the entity, no exception is thrown.
My expectation is the second request to fail because of an old version.
Isn't it possible to overwrite the version of the entity?
I already read a lot of blog entries, but couldn't find any hint to do the trick.
The default JPA optimistic locking mechanism only works when a managed object is flushed but was changed in the meantime. What you want has to be coded manually. Just add the logic to your saveEntity method:
#Transactional
public Entity saveEntity(BOEntity boEntity){
Entity e = entityRepository.findById(boEntity.getId());
if (boEntity.getVersion() != e.getVersion()) {
throw new OptimisticLockException();
}
entityMapper.updateEntity(boEntity, e);
entityRepository.save(e);
}
This question already has answers here:
Spring Data JPA Update #Query not updating?
(5 answers)
Closed 2 years ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question 1 year ago and left it closed:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
Let's suppose to have this situation:
We have Spring Data configured in the standard way, there is a Respository object, an Entity object and all works well.
Now for some complex motivations I have to use EntityManager (or JdbcTemplate, whatever is at a lower level than Spring Data) directly to update the table associated to my Entity, with a native SQL query. So, I'm not using Entity object, but simply doing a database update manually on the table I use as entity (it's more correct to say the table from which I get values, see next rows).
The reason is that I had to bind my spring-data Entity to a MySQL view that makes UNION of multiple tables, not directly to the table I need to update.
What happens is:
In a functional test, I call the "manual" update method (on table from which the MySQL view is created) as previously described (through entity-manager) and if I make a simple Respository.findOne(objectId), I get the old object (not updated one). I have to call Entitymanager.refresh(object) to get the updated object.
Why?
Is there a way to "synchronize" (out of the box) objects (or force some refresh) in spring-data? Or am I asking for a miracle?
I'm not ironical, but maybe I'm not so expert, maybe (or probably) is my ignorance. If so please explain me why and (if you want) share some advanced knowledge about this amazing framework.
If I make a simple Respository.findOne(objectId) I get old object (not
updated one). I've to call Entitymanager.refresh(object) to get
updated object.
Why?
The first-level cache is active for the duration of a session. Any object entity previously retrieved in the context of a session will be retrieved from the first-level cache unless there is reason to go back to the database.
Is there a reason to go back to the database after your SQL update? Well, as the book Pro JPA 2 notes (p199) regarding bulk update statements (either via JPQL or SQL):
The first issue for developers to consider when using these [bulk update] statements
is that the persistence context is not updated to reflect the results
of the operation. Bulk operations are issued as SQL against the
database, bypassing the in-memory structures of the persistence
context.
which is what you are seeing. That is why you need to call refresh to force the entity to be reloaded from the database as the persistence context is not aware of any potential modifications.
The book also notes the following about using Native SQL statements (rather than JPQL bulk update):
■ CAUTION Native SQL update and delete operations should not be
executed on tables mapped by an entity. The JP QL operations tell the
provider what cached entity state must be invalidated in order to
remain consistent with the database. Native SQL operations bypass such
checks and can quickly lead to situations where the inmemory cache is
out of date with respect to the database.
Essentially then, should you have a 2nd level cache configured then updating any entity currently in the cache via a native SQL statement is likely to result in stale data in the cache.
In Spring Boot JpaRepository:
If our modifying query changes entities contained in the persistence context, then this context becomes outdated.
In order to fetch the entities from the database with latest record.
Use #Modifying(clearAutomatically = true)
#Modifying annotation has clearAutomatically attribute which defines whether it should clear the underlying persistence context after executing the modifying query.
Example:
#Modifying(clearAutomatically = true)
#Query("UPDATE NetworkEntity n SET n.network_status = :network_status WHERE n.network_id = :network_id")
int expireNetwork(#Param("network_id") Integer network_id, #Param("network_status") String network_status);
Based on the way you described your usage, fetching from the repo should retrieve the updated object without the need to refresh the object as long as the method which used the entity manager to merge has #transactional
here's a sample test
#DirtiesContext(classMode = ClassMode.AFTER_CLASS)
#RunWith(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.class)
#ContextConfiguration(classes = ApplicationConfig.class)
#EnableJpaRepositories(basePackages = "com.foo")
public class SampleSegmentTest {
#Resource
SampleJpaRepository segmentJpaRepository;
#PersistenceContext
private EntityManager entityManager;
#Transactional
#Test
public void test() {
Segment segment = new Segment();
ReflectionTestUtils.setField(segment, "value", "foo");
ReflectionTestUtils.setField(segment, "description", "bar");
segmentJpaRepository.save(segment);
assertNotNull(segment.getId());
assertEquals("foo", segment.getValue());
assertEquals("bar",segment.getDescription());
ReflectionTestUtils.setField(segment, "value", "foo2");
entityManager.merge(segment);
Segment updatedSegment = segmentJpaRepository.findOne(segment.getId());
assertEquals("foo2", updatedSegment.getValue());
}
}
I have a critical section of code where I need to read and lock an entity by id with pessimistic lock.
This section of code looks like this right now:
MyEntity entity = entityManager.find(MyEntity.class, key);
entityManager.refresh(entity, LockModeType.PESSIMISTIC_WRITE);
It works OK, but as I understand in case when there is no entity in the hibernate's cache, we will use 2 read transactions to a database. 1st transaction to find the entity by id and another transaction to refresh and lock the entity.
Is it possible to use only one transaction in such scenario?
I would imagine something like:
boolean skipCache = true;
MyEntity entity = entityManager.find(MyEntity.class, key,
LockModeType.PESSIMISTIC_WRITE, skipCache);
But there is no such parameter like skipCache. Is there another approach to read an entity by id directly from the database by using EntityManager?
UPDATE:
This query will hit the first level cache in case the entity exists in the cache. Thus, it may potentially return the outdated data and that is why isn't suitable for critical sections where any read should be blocked:
MyEntity entity = entityManager.find(MyEntity.class, key, LockModeType.PESSIMISTIC_WRITE);
The question is about skipping the cache and not about locking.
I've just found a method getReference in the EntityManager which gets an instance, whose state may be lazily fetched. As said in the documentation:
Get an instance, whose state may be lazily fetched. If the requested
instance does not exist in the database, the EntityNotFoundException
is thrown when the instance state is first accessed. (The persistence
provider runtime is permitted to throw the EntityNotFoundException
when getReference is called.) The application should not expect that
the instance state will be available upon detachment, unless it was
accessed by the application while the entity manager was open.
As a possible solution to find and lock an up to date entity by id in one query we can use the next code:
MyEntity entity = entityManager.getReference(MyEntity.class, key);
entityManager.refresh(entity, LockModeType.PESSIMISTIC_WRITE);
This query will create an entity (no database query) and then refresh and lock the entity.
Why not directly pass the requested lock along with the query itself?
MyEntity entity = entityManager.find(MyEntity.class, key, LockModeType.PESSIMISTIC_WRITE);
As far as I understand this is doing exactly what you wanted. (documentation)
You can also set entityManager property just before you use the find method to address not hitting the cache.
Specifying the Cache Mode
entityManager.setProperty("javax.persistence.cache.storeMode", CacheStoreMode.REFRESH);
MyEntity entity = entityManager.find(MyEntity.class, key);
I'm working on a legacy code base that uses JPA (not JPA-2), and have come across the following method in a DAO implementation class to retrieve a single entity by ID (which is also it's primary key):
public EmailTemplate findEmailTemplateById(long id) {
LOG.debug("Entering findEmailTemplateById(id='" + id + "')");
// Construct JPQL query
String queryString = "SELECT a FROM EmailTemplate a " +
"WHERE templateId = :templateId";
Query query = entityManager.createQuery(queryString);
query.setParameter("templateId", id);
LOG.debug("Using query " + queryString);
List<EmailTemplate> resultList = query.getResultList();
LOG.debug("Exiting findEmailTemplateByName(id='" + id + "') results size " + resultList.size() + " ( returns null if 0 )");
if (resultList.isEmpty() || resultList.size() == 0) {
return null;
} else {
return resultList.get(0);
}
}
I now need to write a similar DAO class for a different entity, and my method to find the entity by it's primary key looks a lot simpler! :
#Override
public EmailTemplateEdit findEmailTemplateEditById(long id) {
LOG.debug("Entering findEmailTemplateEditById(id={})", id);
return entityManager.find(EmailTemplateEdit.class, id);
}
The original author is not around to ask, so I'm wondering if anyone can suggest reasons as to why he constructed a JPQL query rather than simply using EntityManager#find(Class<T> entityClass, Object primaryKey)?
The javadoc for the find method says:
If the entity instance is contained in the persistence context, it is
returned from there.
which suggests some form of caching and/or delayed writes. The javadoc for the createQuery and getResultList methods don't say anything like this.
I am unaware of any business or technical requirement in this application that would preclude caching, or of any issues resulting from stale entities or similar. I will check these with the rest of the project team when available, but I just thought I'd canvas the opinion of the SO community to see if there might be other reasons why a query was constructed and executed instead of simply using find
(I've seen this: When use createQuery() and find() methods of EntityManager?. Whilst it answers the question re: difference between createQuery and find, it doesn't answer it in context of finding entities by primary key)
Updated with additional info
From looking at the other methods in the original DAO class, it looks like there has been a deliberate/conscious decision to not take advantage of JPA managed objects. As above, the method to find by primary key uses a JPQL query. The method to delete an entity also uses a JPQL query. And the method to update an entity makes a copy of the passed in entity object and calls EntityManager#merge with the copy (thus the copy is a managed object, but is never used or returned from the method)
Weird ....
Short answer, there is no difference between find and a select query.
Your question suggests that you are not entirely familiar with what an EntityManager and a Persistence context is.
EntityManager implementation are not required to be thread safe. If the EntityManager is injected by Spring or and EJB-container it is thread safe (because it is a thread-local proxy), if it is application managed (you created it by calling EntityManagerFactory.createEntityManager(), it is not thread safe, and you can't stor it in a variable, but have to create a new one every time.
The Persistence Context, is where entities live, whenever you create a new EntityManager you get a new Persistence context (there are exceptions to this rule). When you persist an Entity, or load an existing entity from the db (using find or query) it will be managed by the persistence context. When you commit a transaction JPA runs through ALL Entities managed by the Persistence context, and checks the state of the entity to find out which queries should be sent to the database.
The PersistenceContext can be seen as a first-level cache on top of the database. It is meant to have a short lifespan, typically no longer than the transaction. If you re-use the same entityManager for multiple transactions, the size could grow as more data is loaded, this is bad because every transaction has to run through all entities in the persistence context.
I have a situation in which I need to re-attach detached objects to a hibernate session, although an object of the same identity MAY already exist in the session, which will cause errors.
Right now, I can do one of two things.
getHibernateTemplate().update( obj )
This works if and only if an object doesn't already exist in the hibernate session. Exceptions are thrown stating an object with the given identifier already exists in the session when I need it later.
getHibernateTemplate().merge( obj )
This works if and only if an object exists in the hibernate session. Exceptions are thrown when I need the object to be in a session later if I use this.
Given these two scenarios, how can I generically attach sessions to objects? I don't want to use exceptions to control the flow of this problem's solution, as there must be a more elegant solution...
So it seems that there is no way to reattach a stale detached entity in JPA.
merge() will push the stale state to the DB,
and overwrite any intervening updates.
refresh() cannot be called on a detached entity.
lock() cannot be called on a detached entity,
and even if it could, and it did reattach the entity,
calling 'lock' with argument 'LockMode.NONE'
implying that you are locking, but not locking,
is the most counterintuitive piece of API design I've ever seen.
So you are stuck.
There's an detach() method, but no attach() or reattach().
An obvious step in the object lifecycle is not available to you.
Judging by the number of similar questions about JPA,
it seems that even if JPA does claim to have a coherent model,
it most certainly does not match the mental model of most programmers,
who have been cursed to waste many hours trying understand
how to get JPA to do the simplest things, and end up with cache
management code all over their applications.
It seems the only way to do it is discard your stale detached entity
and do a find query with the same id, that will hit the L2 or the DB.
Mik
All of these answers miss an important distinction. update() is used to (re)attach your object graph to a Session. The objects you pass it are the ones that are made managed.
merge() is actually not a (re)attachment API. Notice merge() has a return value? That's because it returns you the managed graph, which may not be the graph you passed it. merge() is a JPA API and its behavior is governed by the JPA spec. If the object you pass in to merge() is already managed (already associated with the Session) then that's the graph Hibernate works with; the object passed in is the same object returned from merge(). If, however, the object you pass into merge() is detached, Hibernate creates a new object graph that is managed and it copies the state from your detached graph onto the new managed graph. Again, this is all dictated and governed by the JPA spec.
In terms of a generic strategy for "make sure this entity is managed, or make it managed", it kind of depends on if you want to account for not-yet-inserted data as well. Assuming you do, use something like
if ( session.contains( myEntity ) ) {
// nothing to do... myEntity is already associated with the session
}
else {
session.saveOrUpdate( myEntity );
}
Notice I used saveOrUpdate() rather than update(). If you do not want not-yet-inserted data handled here, use update() instead...
Entity states
JPA defines the following entity states:
New (Transient)
A newly created object that hasn’t ever been associated with a Hibernate Session (a.k.a Persistence Context) and is not mapped to any database table row is considered to be in the New (Transient) state.
To become persisted we need to either explicitly call the EntityManager#persist method or make use of the transitive persistence mechanism.
Persistent (Managed)
A persistent entity has been associated with a database table row and it’s being managed by the currently running Persistence Context. Any change made to such an entity is going to be detected and propagated to the database (during the Session flush-time).
With Hibernate, we no longer have to execute INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE statements. Hibernate employs a transactional write-behind working style and changes are synchronized at the very last responsible moment, during the current Session flush-time.
Detached
Once the currently running Persistence Context is closed all the previously managed entities become detached. Successive changes will no longer be tracked and no automatic database synchronization is going to happen.
Entity state transitions
You can change the entity state using various methods defined by the EntityManager interface.
To understand the JPA entity state transitions better, consider the following diagram:
When using JPA, to reassociate a detached entity to an active EntityManager, you can use the merge operation.
When using the native Hibernate API, apart from merge, you can reattach a detached entity to an active Hibernate Sessionusing the update methods, as demonstrated by the following diagram:
Merging a detached entity
The merge is going to copy the detached entity state (source) to a managed entity instance (destination).
Consider we have persisted the following Book entity, and now the entity is detached as the EntityManager that was used to persist the entity got closed:
Book _book = doInJPA(entityManager -> {
Book book = new Book()
.setIsbn("978-9730228236")
.setTitle("High-Performance Java Persistence")
.setAuthor("Vlad Mihalcea");
entityManager.persist(book);
return book;
});
While the entity is in the detached state, we modify it as follows:
_book.setTitle(
"High-Performance Java Persistence, 2nd edition"
);
Now, we want to propagate the changes to the database, so we can call the merge method:
doInJPA(entityManager -> {
Book book = entityManager.merge(_book);
LOGGER.info("Merging the Book entity");
assertFalse(book == _book);
});
And Hibernate is going to execute the following SQL statements:
SELECT
b.id,
b.author AS author2_0_,
b.isbn AS isbn3_0_,
b.title AS title4_0_
FROM
book b
WHERE
b.id = 1
-- Merging the Book entity
UPDATE
book
SET
author = 'Vlad Mihalcea',
isbn = '978-9730228236',
title = 'High-Performance Java Persistence, 2nd edition'
WHERE
id = 1
If the merging entity has no equivalent in the current EntityManager, a fresh entity snapshot will be fetched from the database.
Once there is a managed entity, JPA copies the state of the detached entity onto the one that is currently managed, and during the Persistence Context flush, an UPDATE will be generated if the dirty checking mechanism finds that the managed entity has changed.
So, when using merge, the detached object instance will continue to remain detached even after the merge operation.
Reattaching a detached entity
Hibernate, but not JPA supports reattaching through the update method.
A Hibernate Session can only associate one entity object for a given database row. This is because the Persistence Context acts as an in-memory cache (first level cache) and only one value (entity) is associated with a given key (entity type and database identifier).
An entity can be reattached only if there is no other JVM object (matching the same database row) already associated with the current Hibernate Session.
Considering we have persisted the Book entity and that we modified it when the Book entity was in the detached state:
Book _book = doInJPA(entityManager -> {
Book book = new Book()
.setIsbn("978-9730228236")
.setTitle("High-Performance Java Persistence")
.setAuthor("Vlad Mihalcea");
entityManager.persist(book);
return book;
});
_book.setTitle(
"High-Performance Java Persistence, 2nd edition"
);
We can reattach the detached entity like this:
doInJPA(entityManager -> {
Session session = entityManager.unwrap(Session.class);
session.update(_book);
LOGGER.info("Updating the Book entity");
});
And Hibernate will execute the following SQL statement:
-- Updating the Book entity
UPDATE
book
SET
author = 'Vlad Mihalcea',
isbn = '978-9730228236',
title = 'High-Performance Java Persistence, 2nd edition'
WHERE
id = 1
The update method requires you to unwrap the EntityManager to a Hibernate Session.
Unlike merge, the provided detached entity is going to be reassociated with the current Persistence Context and an UPDATE is scheduled during flush whether the entity has modified or not.
To prevent this, you can use the #SelectBeforeUpdate Hibernate annotation which will trigger a SELECT statement that fetched loaded state which is then used by the dirty checking mechanism.
#Entity(name = "Book")
#Table(name = "book")
#SelectBeforeUpdate
public class Book {
//Code omitted for brevity
}
Beware of the NonUniqueObjectException
One problem that can occur with update is if the Persistence Context already contains an entity reference with the same id and of the same type as in the following example:
Book _book = doInJPA(entityManager -> {
Book book = new Book()
.setIsbn("978-9730228236")
.setTitle("High-Performance Java Persistence")
.setAuthor("Vlad Mihalcea");
Session session = entityManager.unwrap(Session.class);
session.saveOrUpdate(book);
return book;
});
_book.setTitle(
"High-Performance Java Persistence, 2nd edition"
);
try {
doInJPA(entityManager -> {
Book book = entityManager.find(
Book.class,
_book.getId()
);
Session session = entityManager.unwrap(Session.class);
session.saveOrUpdate(_book);
});
} catch (NonUniqueObjectException e) {
LOGGER.error(
"The Persistence Context cannot hold " +
"two representations of the same entity",
e
);
}
Now, when executing the test case above, Hibernate is going to throw a NonUniqueObjectException because the second EntityManager already contains a Book entity with the same identifier as the one we pass to update, and the Persistence Context cannot hold two representations of the same entity.
org.hibernate.NonUniqueObjectException:
A different object with the same identifier value was already associated with the session : [com.vladmihalcea.book.hpjp.hibernate.pc.Book#1]
at org.hibernate.engine.internal.StatefulPersistenceContext.checkUniqueness(StatefulPersistenceContext.java:651)
at org.hibernate.event.internal.DefaultSaveOrUpdateEventListener.performUpdate(DefaultSaveOrUpdateEventListener.java:284)
at org.hibernate.event.internal.DefaultSaveOrUpdateEventListener.entityIsDetached(DefaultSaveOrUpdateEventListener.java:227)
at org.hibernate.event.internal.DefaultSaveOrUpdateEventListener.performSaveOrUpdate(DefaultSaveOrUpdateEventListener.java:92)
at org.hibernate.event.internal.DefaultSaveOrUpdateEventListener.onSaveOrUpdate(DefaultSaveOrUpdateEventListener.java:73)
at org.hibernate.internal.SessionImpl.fireSaveOrUpdate(SessionImpl.java:682)
at org.hibernate.internal.SessionImpl.saveOrUpdate(SessionImpl.java:674)
Conclusion
The merge method is to be preferred if you are using optimistic locking as it allows you to prevent lost updates.
The update is good for batch updates as it can prevent the additional SELECT statement generated by the merge operation, therefore reducing the batch update execution time.
Undiplomatic answer: You're probably looking for an extended persistence context. This is one of the main reasons behind the Seam Framework... If you're struggling to use Hibernate in Spring in particular, check out this piece of Seam's docs.
Diplomatic answer: This is described in the Hibernate docs. If you need more clarification, have a look at Section 9.3.2 of Java Persistence with Hibernate called "Working with Detached Objects." I'd strongly recommend you get this book if you're doing anything more than CRUD with Hibernate.
If you are sure that your entity has not been modified (or if you agree any modification will be lost), then you may reattach it to the session with lock.
session.lock(entity, LockMode.NONE);
It will lock nothing, but it will get the entity from the session cache or (if not found there) read it from the DB.
It's very useful to prevent LazyInitException when you are navigating relations from an "old" (from the HttpSession for example) entities. You first "re-attach" the entity.
Using get may also work, except when you get inheritance mapped (which will already throw an exception on the getId()).
entity = session.get(entity.getClass(), entity.getId());
I went back to the JavaDoc for org.hibernate.Session and found the following:
Transient instances may be made persistent by calling save(), persist() or
saveOrUpdate(). Persistent instances may be made transient by calling delete(). Any instance returned by a get() or load() method is persistent. Detached instances may be made persistent by calling update(), saveOrUpdate(), lock() or replicate(). The state of a transient or detached instance may also be made persistent as a new persistent instance by calling merge().
Thus update(), saveOrUpdate(), lock(), replicate() and merge() are the candidate options.
update(): Will throw an exception if there is a persistent instance with the same identifier.
saveOrUpdate(): Either save or update
lock(): Deprecated
replicate(): Persist the state of the given detached instance, reusing the current identifier value.
merge(): Returns a persistent object with the same identifier. The given instance does not become associated with the session.
Hence, lock() should not be used straightway and based on the functional requirement one or more of them can be chosen.
I did it that way in C# with NHibernate, but it should work the same way in Java:
public virtual void Attach()
{
if (!HibernateSessionManager.Instance.GetSession().Contains(this))
{
ISession session = HibernateSessionManager.Instance.GetSession();
using (ITransaction t = session.BeginTransaction())
{
session.Lock(this, NHibernate.LockMode.None);
t.Commit();
}
}
}
First Lock was called on every object because Contains was always false. The problem is that NHibernate compares objects by database id and type. Contains uses the equals method, which compares by reference if it's not overwritten. With that equals method it works without any Exceptions:
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
if (this == obj) {
return true;
}
if (GetType() != obj.GetType()) {
return false;
}
if (Id != ((BaseObject)obj).Id)
{
return false;
}
return true;
}
Session.contains(Object obj) checks the reference and will not detect a different instance that represents the same row and is already attached to it.
Here my generic solution for Entities with an identifier property.
public static void update(final Session session, final Object entity)
{
// if the given instance is in session, nothing to do
if (session.contains(entity))
return;
// check if there is already a different attached instance representing the same row
final ClassMetadata classMetadata = session.getSessionFactory().getClassMetadata(entity.getClass());
final Serializable identifier = classMetadata.getIdentifier(entity, (SessionImplementor) session);
final Object sessionEntity = session.load(entity.getClass(), identifier);
// override changes, last call to update wins
if (sessionEntity != null)
session.evict(sessionEntity);
session.update(entity);
}
This is one of the few aspects of .Net EntityFramework I like, the different attach options regarding changed entities and their properties.
I came up with a solution to "refresh" an object from the persistence store that will account for other objects which may already be attached to the session:
public void refreshDetached(T entity, Long id)
{
// Check for any OTHER instances already attached to the session since
// refresh will not work if there are any.
T attached = (T) session.load(getPersistentClass(), id);
if (attached != entity)
{
session.evict(attached);
session.lock(entity, LockMode.NONE);
}
session.refresh(entity);
}
Sorry, cannot seem to add comments (yet?).
Using Hibernate 3.5.0-Final
Whereas the Session#lock method this deprecated, the javadoc does suggest using Session#buildLockRequest(LockOptions)#lock(entity)and if you make sure your associations have cascade=lock, the lazy-loading isn't an issue either.
So, my attach method looks a bit like
MyEntity attach(MyEntity entity) {
if(getSession().contains(entity)) return entity;
getSession().buildLockRequest(LockOptions.NONE).lock(entity);
return entity;
Initial tests suggest it works a treat.
Perhaps it behaves slightly different on Eclipselink. To re-attach detached objects without getting stale data, I usually do:
Object obj = em.find(obj.getClass(), id);
and as an optional a second step (to get caches invalidated):
em.refresh(obj)
try getHibernateTemplate().replicate(entity,ReplicationMode.LATEST_VERSION)
In the original post, there are two methods, update(obj) and merge(obj) that are mentioned to work, but in opposite circumstances. If this is really true, then why not test to see if the object is already in the session first, and then call update(obj) if it is, otherwise call merge(obj).
The test for existence in the session is session.contains(obj). Therefore, I would think the following pseudo-code would work:
if (session.contains(obj))
{
session.update(obj);
}
else
{
session.merge(obj);
}
to reattach this object, you must use merge();
this methode accept in parameter your entity detached and return an entity will be attached and reloaded from Database.
Example :
Lot objAttach = em.merge(oldObjDetached);
objAttach.setEtat(...);
em.persist(objAttach);
calling first merge() (to update persistent instance), then lock(LockMode.NONE) (to attach the current instance, not the one returned by merge()) seems to work for some use cases.
Property hibernate.allow_refresh_detached_entity did the trick for me. But it is a general rule, so it is not very suitable if you want to do it only in some cases. I hope it helps.
Tested on Hibernate 5.4.9
SessionFactoryOptionsBuilder
try getHibernateTemplate().saveOrUpdate()