We Keep Coding

Hibernate Lazyloading in OOP-style

So, lets imagine that I have two objects: Course and Exercise. Course Contains list of Exercises.
Lazy loading is enabled, and via Repository I get a Course that I'm interested in:
couserRepo.query(new ByNameSpec("courseName")).
Now I want to acces Course exercises, but when I call course.getExerccises() I get a msg, that session is closed already.
So, I have to make another query to repo, that is absolutely not convinient.
What to do with this?

Remember that opening session per operation is antipattern. See http://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/orm/5.1/userguide/html_single/Hibernate_User_Guide.html#session-per-operation for more information.
The scope of a Hibernate org.hibernate.Session is flexible but you should never design your application to use a new Hibernate org.hibernate.Session for every database operation.
I think you should consider Session-per-request pattern.

How to coordinate J2EE and Java EE database access?

We have a somewhat huge application which started a decade ago and is still under active development. So some parts are still in J2EE 1.4 architecture, others using Java EE 5/6.
While testing some new code, I realized that I had data inconsistency between information coming in through old and new code parts, where the old one uses the Hibernate session directly and the new one an injected EntityManager. This led to the problem, that one part couldn't see new data from the other part and thus also created a database record, resulting in primary key constraint violation.
It is planned to migrate the old code completely to get rid of J2EE, but in the meantime - what can I do to coordinate database access between the two parts? And shouldn't at some point within the application server both ways come together in the Hibernate layer, regardless if accessed via JPA or directly?

You can mix both Hibernate Session and Entity Manager in the same application without any problem. The EntityManagerImpl simply delegates calls the a private SessionImpl instance.
What you describe is a Transaction configuration anomaly. Every database transaction runs in isolation (unless you use REAN_UNCOMMITED which I guess it's not the case), but once you commit it the changes are available from any other transaction or connection. So once a transaction is committed you should see al changes in any other Hibernate Session, JDBC connection or even your database UI manager tool.
You said that there was a primary key conflict. This can't happen if you use Hibernate identity or sequence generator. For the old hi-lo generator you can have problems if an external connection tries to insert records in the same table Hibernate uses an old hi/lo identifier generator.
This problem can also occur if there is a master/master replication anomaly. If you have multiple nodes and there is no strict consistency replication you can end up with primar key constraint violations.
Update
Solution 1:
When coordinating the new and the old code trying to insert the same entity, you could have a slect-than-insert logic running in a SERIALIZABLE transaction. The SERIALIZABLE transaction acquires the appropriate locks on tour behalf and so you can still have a default READ_COMMITTED isolation level, while only the problematic Service methods are marked as SERIALIZABLE.
So both the old code and the new code have this logic running a select for checking if there is already a row satisfying the select constraint, only to insert it if nothing is found. The SERIALIZABLE isolation level prevents phantom reads so I think it should prevent constraint violations.
Solution 2:
If you are open to delegate this task to JDBC, you might also investigate the MERGE SQL statement, if your current database supports it. Basically, this is an upsert operation issuing an update or an insert behind the scenes. This command is much more attractive since you can still run it with even on READ_COMMITTED. The only drawback is that you can't use Hibernate for it, and only some databases support it.

If you instanciate separately a SessionFactory for the old code and an EntityManagerFactory for new code, that can lead to different value in first level cache. If during a single Http request, you change a value in old code, but do not immediately commit, the value will be changed in session cache, but it will not be available for new code until it is commited. Independentely of any transaction or database locking that would protect persistent values, that mix of two different Hibernate session can give weird things for in memory values.
I admit that the injected EntityManager still uses Hibernate. IMHO the most robust solution is to get the EntityManagerFactory for the PersistenceUnit and cast it to an Hibernate EntityManagerFactoryImpl. Then you can directly access the the underlying SessionFactory :
SessionFactory sessionFactory = entityManagerFactory.getSessionFactory();
You can then safely use this SessionFactory in your old code, because now it is unique in your application and shared between old and new code.
You still have to deal with the problem of session creation-close and transaction management. I suppose it is allready implemented in old code. Without knowing more, I think that you should port it to JPA, because I am pretty sure that if an EntityManager exists, sessionFactory.getCurrentSession() will give its underlying Session but I cannot affirm anything for the opposite.

I've run into a similar problem when I had a list of enumerated lookup values, where two pieces of code would check for the existence of a given value in the list, and if it didn't exist the code would create a new entry in the database. When both of them came across the same non-existent value, they'd both try to create a new one and one would have its transaction rolled back (throwing away a bunch of other work we'd done in the transaction).
Our solution was to create those lookup values in a separate transaction that committed immediately; if that transaction succeeded, then we knew we could use that object, and if it failed, then we knew we simply needed to perform a get to retrieve the one saved by another process. Once we had a lookup object that we knew was safe to use in our session, we could happily do the rest of the DB modifications without risking the transaction being rolled back.
It's hard to know from your description whether your data model would lend itself to a similar approach, where you'd at least commit the initial version of the entity right away, and then once you're sure you're working with a persistent object you could do the rest of the DB modifications that you knew you needed to do. But if you can find a way to make that work, it would avoid the need to share the Session between the different pieces of code (and would work even if the old and new code were running in separate JVMs).

where we need to set hibernate session to thread local object

ThreadLocal<Session> tl = new ThreadLocal<Session>();
tl.set(session);
to get the session,
Employee emp = (Employee)((Session)tl.get().get(Employee.class, 1));
If our application is web based, the web container creates a separate thread for each request.
If all these requests concurrently using the same single Session object , we should get
unwanted results in our database operations.
To overcome from above results, it is good practice to set our session to threadLocal object
which does not allows concurrent usage of session.I think, If it is correct the application performance should be very poor.
What is the good approach in above scenarios.
If I'm in wrong track , in which situations we need to go for ThreadLocal.
I'm new to hibernate, please excuse me if this type questioning is silly.
thanks in advance.

Putting the Hibernate Session in ThreadLocal is unlikely to achieve the isolation between requests that you want. Surely you create a new Session for each request using a SessionFactory backed by a connection pooling implementation of DataSource, which means that the local reference to the Session is on the stack anyway. Changing that local reference to a member variable only complicates the code, imho.
Anyhow, ensuring isolation within a single container doesn't address the actual problem - how is data accessed efficiently while maintaining consistency within a multi-threaded environment.
There are two parts to the problem you mention - the first is that a database connection is an expensive resource, the second that you need to ensure some level of data consistency between threads/requests.
The general approach to the resource problem is to use a database connection pool (which I'd guess you're already doing). As each request is processed, connections are obtained from the pool and returned when finished but importantly the connections in the pool are maintained beyond the lifetime of a request thus avoiding the cost of creating a connection each time it is needed.
The consistency problem is a little trickier and there's no one size fits all model. What you need to be doing is thinking about what level of consistency you need - questions like does it matter if data is read at the same time it's being written, do updates absolutely have to be atomic, etc.
Once you know the answer to these questions there two places you need to look at consistency - in the database and in the code.
With the database you need to look at database level locks and create a scheme suitable for your application by applying that appropriate isolation levels.
With the code, things are a little more complicated. Data is often loaded and displayed for a period of time before updates are written back - no problem if there's a single user but in a multi-user system it's possible that updates are made based on stale data or multiple updates occur simulatiously. It may be acceptable to have a policy of last update wins, in which case it's simple, but if not you'll need to be using version numbers or old/new comparisons to ensure integrity at the time the updates are applied.

I am not sure if you have compulsion of using ThreadLocal. Using ThreadLocal to store session object is definitely is not a good idea, specially when you are using hibernate along with spring.
A typical scheme for using Hibernate with Spring is:
Inject the sessionFactory in your DAO. I assume that you have sessionFactory already configured which is backed by a pooled datasource.
Now in your DAO class, a session can be accessed as follows.
Session session = sessionFactory.getCurrentSession();
Here is a link to related article.
Please note that this example is specific to Hiberante 3.x APIs. This takes care of session creation/closure/thread-safety aspect internally and its neat too.

Should I use static of non-static sessions?

I've recently taken on the database/hibernate side of our project and am having terrible trouble understanding some fundamentals of our design regarding the use of managed sessions.
We have a util class containing a static session that is only initialised once. Retrieval of the session is used by every DAO in the system via a static method getBoundSession(). The application runs 24/7. Is this a common design?
One of the benefits which is extremely useful, is that lazy attributes/collections on domain objects can be used throughout the business logic tier since the session is always open. Another benefit is that the objects retreived will stay cached within the session.
I feel we must be using Hibernate in the wrong way, it just doesn't seem right to have a single permanently open session. Also it causes problems when separate threads are using the util class, hence sharing the session. On the flip side I can't find a way to achieve the above benefits (particularly the first) with a different design. Can anyone shed any light on this?
Thanks
James

We have a util class containing a static session that is only initialised once. Retrieval of the session is used by every DAO in the system via a static method getBoundSession(). The application runs 24/7. Is this a common design?
Not it's not. The most common pattern in a multi-user client/server application is session-per-request and a session-per-application approach in a multi-user application is not only an anti-pattern, it's totally wrong:
A Session is not thread-safe.
You should rollback a transaction and close the Session after an Hibernate exception if you want to keep object state and database in sync.
The Session will grow indefinitely if keep it open too long.
You really need to read the whole Chapter 11. Transactions and Concurrency.
On the flip side I can't find a way to achieve the above benefits (particularly the first) with a different design.
Either use the OSIV (Open Session In View) pattern or load explicitely what you need per flow. And if you want to benefit from global caching, use the second level cache.

Keeping a session open for an extended period of time is OK (although that should not be eternity :-) A session should identify a unit of work - a coherent set of queries / updates which logically belong together. Can you identify such units in your app - e.g. client requests or conversations? If so, create a separate session for each of these.
You should also definitely use a separate session per thread (typically a unit of work is handled by a single thread anyway). A simple way to achieve this is using thread local storage.

It's an anti-pattern.
If you use one session for all requests. Then consider 100 clients (100 requests/threads) running almost simultaneously. You detach something from the session, but then another user reloads the same thing. You will need syncrhonization, which will hit performance. And you will have totally random behaviour that will be nightmare to debug.
The SessionFactory is static / per-application, not the Session. The factory should build a session whenever required. Read sessions and transactions docs at hibernate.

Open Session In View Pattern

I'm asking this question given my chosen development frameworks of JPA (Hibernate implementation of), Spring, and <insert MVC framework here - Struts 1, Struts 2, Spring MVC, Stripes...>.
I've been thinking a bit about relationships in my entity layer - for example I have an order entity that has many order lines. I've set up my app so that it eagerly loads the order lines for every order. Do you think this is a lazy way to get around the lazy initialization problems that I would come across if I was to set the fetch strategy to false?
The way I see it, I have the following alternatives when retrieving entities and their associations:
Use the Open Session In View pattern to create the session on each request and commit the transaction before returning the response.
Implement a DTO (Data Transfer Object) layer such that every DAO query I execute returns the correctly initialized DTO for my purposes. I don't really like this option much because in my experience I've found that it creates a lot of boilerplate copying code and becomes messy to maintain.
Don't map any associations in JPA so that every query I execute returns only the entities I'm interested in - this will probably require me to have DTOs anyway and will be a pain to maintain and I think defeats the purpose of having an ORM in the first place.
Eagerly fetch all (or most associations) - in the example above, always fetch all order lines when I retrieve an order.
So my question is, when and under what circumstances would you use which of these options? Do you always stick with one way of doing it?
I would ask a colleague but I think that if I even mentioned the term 'Open Session in View' I would be greeted with blank stares :( What I'm really looking for here is some advice from a senior or very experienced developer.
Thanks guys!

Open Session in View has some problems.
For example, if the transaction fails, you might know it too late at commit time, once you are nearly done rendering your page (possibly the response already commited, so you can't change the page !) ... If you had know that error before, you would have followed a different flow and ended up rendering a different page...
Other example, reading data on-demand might turn to many "N+1 select" problems, that kill your performance.
Many projects use the following path:
Maintain transactions at the business layer ; load at that point everything you are supposed to need.
Presentation layer runs the risk of LazyExceptions : each is considered a programming error, caught during tests, and corrected by loading more data in the business layer (you have the opportunity to do it efficiently, avoiding "N+1 select" problems).
To avoid creating extra classes for DTOs, you can load the data inside the entity objects themselves. This is the whole point of the POJO approach (uses by modern data-access layers, and even integration technologies like Spring).

I've successfully solved all my lazy initialization problems with Open Session In View -pattern (ie. the Spring implementation). The technologies I used were the exact same as you have.
Using this pattern allows me to fully map the entity relationships and not worry about fetching child entities in the dao. Mostly. In 90% of the cases the pattern solves the lazy initialization needs in the view. In some cases you'll have to "manually" initialize relationships. These cases were rare and always involved very very complex mappings in my case.
When using Open Entity Manager In View pattern it's important to define the entity relationships and especially propagation and transactional settings correctly. If these are not configured properly, there will be errors related to closed sessions when some entity is lazily initialized in the view and it fails due to the session having been closed already.
I definately would go with option 1. Option 2 might be needed sometimes, but I see absolutely no reason to use option 3. Option 4 is also a no no. Eagerly fetching everything kills the performance of any view that needs to list just a few properties of some parent entities (orders in tis case).
N+1 Selects
During development there will be N+1 selects as a result of initializing some relationships in the view. But this is not a reason to discard the pattern. Just fix these problems as they arise and before delivering the code to production. It's as easy to fix these problems with OEMIV pattern as it's with any other pattern: add the proper dao or service methods, fix the controller to call a different finder method, maybe add a view to the database etc.

I have successfully used the Open-Session-in-View pattern on a project. However, I recently read in "Spring In Practice" of an interesting potential problem with non-repeatable reads if you manage your transactions at a lower layer while keeping the Hibernate session open in the view layer.
We managed most of our transactions in the service layer, but kept the hibernate session open in the view layer. This meant that lazy reads in the view were resulting in separate read transactions.
We managed our transactions in our service layer to minimize transaction duration. For instance, some of our service calls resulted in both a database transaction and a web service call to an external service. We did not want our transaction to be open while waiting for a web service call to respond.
As our system never went into production, I am not sure if there were any real problems with it, but I suspect that there was the potential for the view to attempt to lazily load an object that has been deleted by someone else.

There are some benefits of DTO approach though. You have to think beforehand what information you need. In some cases this will prevent you from generating n+1 select statements. It helps also to see where to use eager fetching and/or optimized views.

I'll also throw my weight behind the Open-Session-in-View pattern, having been in the exact same boat before.
I work with Stripes without spring, and have created a manual filter before that tends to work well. Coding transaction logic on the backend turns messy really quick as you've mentioned. Eagerly fetching everything becomes TERRIBLE as you map more and more objects to each other.
One thing I want to add that you may not have come across is Stripersist and Stripernate - Stripersist being the more JPA flavor - auto-hydration filters that take a lot of the work off your shoulders.
With Stripersist you can say things like /appContextRoot/actions/view/3 and it will auto-hydrate the JPA Entity on the ActionBean with id of 3 before the event is executed.
Stripersist is in the stripes-stuff package on sourceforge. I now use this for all new projects, as it's clean and easily supports multiple datasources if necessary.

Does the Order and Order Lines compose a high volume of data? Do they take part in online processes where real-time response is required? If so, you might consider not using eager fetching - it does make a huge diference in performance. If the amount of data is small, there is no problem in eager fetching.
About using DTOs, it might be a viable implementation.
If your business layer is used internally by your own application (i.e a small web app and its business logic) it'd probably be best to use your own entities in your view with open session in view pattern since it's simpler.
If your entities are used by many applications (i.e a backend application providing a service in your corporation) it'd be interesting to use DTOs since you would not expose your model to your clients. Exposing it could mean you would have a harder time refactoring your model since it could mean breaking contracts with your clients. A DTO would make that easier since you have another layer of
abstraction. This can be a bit strange since EJB3 would theorically eliminate the need of DTOs.