When an object is written to database and the primary identifier (id) is known, it can be retrieved by the code below:
MyObject myObject = session.get(Class<MyObject>, id);
It seems, there is another way similar to get() method:
IdentifierLoadAccess<MyObject> ila = session.byId(Class<MyObject>);
MyObject myObject = ila.load(id);
I'm looking for a scenario which clarifies differences between them and describes the reason for having two similar methods for the same job in API.
same question can be asked about session.load() and session.byId().getReference().
Edit 1:
According to API documentation:
session.get() and session.byId().load() return persistent instance with given identifier, or null if there is no such persistent instance.
session.load() and session.byId().getReference() might return a proxied instance that is initialized in demand.
IdentifierLoadAccess allows you to specify:
LockOptions
CacheMode
even specifying both of them at once:
Post post = session
.byId( Post.class )
.with( new LockOptions( LockMode.OPTIMISTIC_FORCE_INCREMENT) )
.with( CacheMode.GET )
.load( id );
The same for getting a Proxy reference via getReference(id).
So, they are more flexible than the standard get or load which only take the entity identifier.
The similarity between
MyObject myObject = session.get(Class<MyObject>, id);
and
IdentifierLoadAccess<MyObject> ila = session.byId(Class<MyObject>);
MyObject myObject = ila.load(id);
is that both uses the copncept of hibernate cache mechanism but difference comes in fetching the data from database i.e
When we use session.get(Class,id) data from database comes in cache and you can make changes on that data and will be reflected back in database, as hibernate internally maintains a time stamp cache. This time stamp cache records the time at which a particular Hibernate managed table got modified and before returning the data from entity cache it validate whether the result cache are older with respect to table modification time.
But in case of session.byId().getReference() hibernate uses the concept of natural id in which data from database comes in cache but only onces.If you do any changes on that data using session.save(entity object) approach hibernate will throw an exception and if you do manually modification of table(insert,update,delete) it will not be reflected back when you fetch the data again as it always get the data from cache without checking whether that table for that entity has been modified again or not.
In case of session.get() and session.load() if there is any change in database like (insert,delete,update) of record it will get reflected either in the form of record or null pointer exception if record gets deleted.But in case of session.byId().load() and session.byId().getReference() it will first get the record from database when you try to fetch first time then it will save those record in session and will be shown to user from session only if any (insertion,deletion,updation) occurs then it will not be reflected back
It's mostly used in polymorphic association/queries. assume you have an entity named User with the BillingDetails association. If BillingDetails was mapped with
lazy="true" (which is the default), Hibernate would proxy the association target. In this case, you wouldn’t be able to perform a type-cast to the concrete class CreditCard (which is a subclass of BillingDetails) at runtime, and even the instanceof operator would behave strangely:
User user = (User) session.get(User.class, userid);
BillingDetails bd = user.getDefaultBillingDetails();
System.out.println( bd instanceof CreditCard ); // Prints "false"
CreditCard cc = (CreditCard) bd; // ClassCastException!
To perform a proxy-safe typecast, use load()
User user = (User) session.get(User.class, userId);
BillingDetails bd = user.getDefaultBillingDetails();
// Narrow the proxy to the subclass, doesn't hit the database
CreditCard cc =
(CreditCard) session.load( CreditCard.class, bd.getId() );
expiryDate = cc.getExpiryDate();
Note that you can avoid these issues by avoiding lazy fetching, as in the follow-ing code, using an eager fetch query
User user = (User)session.createCriteria(User.class)
.add(Restrictions.eq("id", uid) )
.setFetchMode("defaultBillingDetails", FetchMode.JOIN)
.uniqueResult();
// The users defaultBillingDetails have been fetched eagerly
CreditCard cc = (CreditCard) user.getDefaultBillingDetails();
expiryDate = cc.getExpiryDate();
Truly object-oriented code shouldn’t use instanceof or numerous typecasts. If you find yourself running into problems with proxies, you should question your design, asking whether there is a more polymorphic approach.
The key difference between get() and load() method is that load() will throw an exception if an object with id passed to them is not found, but get() will return null. Another important difference is that load can return proxy without hitting the database unless required (when you access any attribute other than id) but get() always go to the database, so sometimes using load() can be faster than the get() method. It makes sense to use the load() method if you know the object exists but get() method if you are not sure about object's existence.
I would like to have access to a Hibernate mapped object inside the transaction that creates it in order to make a clone of it. There is a reason I want to make a clone of it via the Hibernate Session and not just using Object.clone() (long story...).
Transaction tran = session.beginTransaction();
Gadget gadg = new Gadget(1 /* id */, "Gadget Name", "some label", 123);
session.save(gadg);
//this returns null
Gadget gadgClone = (Gadget)session.get(Gadget.class, gadg.getId());
//do something with the clone
tran.commit();
However, gadgClone is null. Is it because it has not been committed yet? Is there a way to make it accessible in the session before committing?
Why don't you clone the object before persisting it?
Why do you clone it after un-persisting it?...
Anyhow, have you tried to load the object from the cache? For performance reasons, you don't need to hit the database if your object resides in the cache.
Gadget savedGadg = (Gadget) session.load(Gadget.class, gadg.getId());
Further you may need to initialize the object (and perhaps its fields), all before committing the transaction.
Hibernate.initialize(savedGadg);
Hibernate.initialize(savedGadg.getCertainCollection());
In the following code sample:
Session session = getSessionFactory().openSession();
MyObject currentState = (MyObject)
session.get(MyObject.class, id, new LockOptions(LockMode.???));
if (!statusToUpdateTo.equals(currentState.getStatus())) {
tx = session.beginTransaction();
currentState.setStatus(statusToUpdateTo);
session.save(currentState);
tx.commit();
}
session.close();
As you might hopefully interpret from the code, the idea is to check our store and find an object with a given id, then update it to a given status. If we find that the object is already in the status we want to update to, we abandon doing anything. Otherwise, we update the status and save it back to the store.
The worry I've got is that what if several of these requests come through at once, and all try to read and update the same object? Looking through the doco it would seem like Hibernate "usually obtains exactly the right lock level automatically." (LockMode.class) but I'm still keen to ensure that only one thing can read the object, make the decision that it needs to update it, and then update it - without any other threads doing the same to the same database entry.
From the LockMode class I think PESSIMISTIC_WRITE is what I'm after, but can't seem to find a documentation resource that confirms this. Is anyone able to confirm this for me, and that the above code will do what I'm after?
So I noticed in my original code that upon session close, a lock was still left on the database, as subsequent calls to delete the rows I'd inserted didn't complete when tx.commit() was called on them.
After adding the following else block, my tests pass which I infer as meaning the lock has been released (as these rows are now being cleaned up).
Session session = getSessionFactory().openSession();
MyObject currentState = (MyObject)
session.get(MyObject.class, id,
new LockOptions(LockMode.PESSIMISTIC_WRITE));
if (!statusToUpdateTo.equals(currentState.getStatus())) {
tx = session.beginTransaction();
currentState.setStatus(statusToUpdateTo);
session.save(currentState);
tx.commit();
} else {
// Seems to clear lock
tx = session.beginTransaction();
tx.rollback();
}
session.close();
To me, this obviously reflects my lack of understanding about Hibernate's locking mechanisms, but it does seem slightly strange that one can get a lock using session.get(...) or session.load(...) and then not release a lock using session itself, but rather only through creating a transaction and committing/rolling back.
Of course, I could just be misunderstanding the observed behaviour :)
I learnt Hibernate and used it to reduce my Java code to a vast extent and also able
to reduce the time spent for DB's. Now what type of query should i use to finish my
operations for getting a DB list to be displayed, to update and delete.
My code for deletion is
String newToken = "DELETEUSER";
if(!TokenManager.checkRoleToken(newToken)){
return;
}
Session session = Main.getSession(); //calling the main method to get sesion
Leavetable table = new Leavetable; // intialisation of object table
try{
Transaction tr = session.beginTransaction();
table = session.createQuery();
session.delete(table); // deletion of the object and its properties from selected leaveID
tr.commit();
}
finally{
session.close();
}
My code for Db updation
public void updateLeaveTable( Leavetable leave ) {
String newToken = "ADDUSER";
if( !TokenManager.checkRoleToken( newToken ) ) {
return;
}
Session session = Main.getSession(); // calling the main method to get
// session
try {
session = Main.getSession();
Transaction tr = session.beginTransaction();
session.saveOrUpdate( leave ); // here without query the table gets
// updated How?
tr.commit();
}
finally {
session.close();
}
}
What type of query should I follow. My final task before going into project. When I
know this will start my life as a developer. Any suggestions Please.
Do you mean a HQL query? Well, a typical query on your Leavetable entity would looks like this:
Query q = session.createQuery("from Leavetable t where t.someField = :value");
q.setParameter("value", foo);
List<Leavetable> results = q.list();
However, if you just want to retrieve an entity by identifier, see Session#load() or Session#get(). I don't want to make things too much confusing but while both methods are similar, there is an important difference between both of them. Quoting the Hibernate Forums:
Retrieving objects by identifier
The following Hibernate code snippet
retrieves a User object from the
database:
User user = (User) session.get(User.class, userID);
The get() method is special because
the identifier uniquely identifies a
single instance of a class. Hence it’s
common for applications to use the
identifier as a convenient handle to a
persistent object. Retrieval by
identifier can use the cache when
retrieving an object, avoiding a
database hit if the object is already
cached. Hibernate also provides a
load() method:
User user = (User) session.load(User.class, userID);
The load() method is older; get() was
added to Hibernate’s API due to user
request. The difference is trivial:
If load() can’t find the object in
the cache or database, an exception is
thrown. The load() method never
returns null. The get() method
returns null if the object can’t be
found.
The load() method may return a proxy
instead of a real persistent instance.
A proxy is a placeholder that triggers
the loading of the real object when
it’s accessed for the first time; we
discuss proxies later in this section.
On the other hand, get() never
returns a proxy.
Choosing between get() and load()
is easy: If you’re certain the
persistent object exists, and
nonexistence would be considered
exceptional, load() is a good
option. If you aren’t certain there is
a persistent instance with the given
identifier, use get() and test the
return value to see if it’s null.
Using load() has a further
implication: The application may
retrieve a valid reference (a proxy)
to a persistent instance without
hitting the database to retrieve its
persistent state. So load() might
not throw an exception when it doesn’t
find the persistent object in the
cache or database; the exception would
be thrown later, when the proxy is
accessed.
Of course, retrieving an object by
identifier isn’t as flexible as using
arbitrary queries.
See also the Hibernate Documentation (links below).
Reference
Hibernate Core Reference Guide
10.3. Loading an object
Chapter 14. HQL: The Hibernate Query Language
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()