Java – Transaction rollback when exception in Spring

commitjavarollbackspringtransactions

I am learning Spring and I have some troubles with transaction in Spring.

Here is my code

@Transactional(rollbackFor = Exception.class)
public void createGroupStudent(Student A,Student B,String nameGroup){
    try{
        //create Group
        createGroup(nameGroup);
        //createMember
        createMember(A,B);
    }catch(Exception e){
        logger.error(e.getMessage());
    }
}

@Transactional(rollbackFor = Exception.class)
public void createGroup(String nameGroup){
    try{
        repoGroup.save(nameGroup);
    }catch(Exception e){
        logger.error(e.getMessage());
    }
}

@Transactional(rollbackFor = Exception.class)
public void createMember(Student A,Student B){
    try{
        // function will throw a kind of Exception involve to " error constraint sql oracle " . 
        //It's my intended
        repoMember.save(A,B);
    }catch(Exception e){
        logger.error(e.getMessage());
    }
}

The problem is when function createMember() throws Exception, transaction alway rollback why? I can't understand what happened! I added try, catch in each method but it didn't work.

Although method createMember() have trouble while saving to Database (Here i'm using function saveAndFlush()).I know it and I catch that exception. Parent transaction createGroupStudent() thinks itself is no problems and commit transaction . But when commit once again method createMember() will break and throw Exception.I think method createGroup() won't rollback. But in real, that function rollbacked,all of transactions were rollback? What happened?.

I'm using atomikos transaction.

Thanks so much

Best Answer

If any of the methods throws Exception, the transaction will rollback. But none of the methods are throwing Exception. Rethrow the Exception in catch block, it will work.Check the documentation for Transactional annotation.

Related Solutions

Java – When to use LinkedList over ArrayList in Java

Summary ArrayList with ArrayDeque are preferable in many more use-cases than LinkedList. If you're not sure — just start with ArrayList.

TLDR, in ArrayList accessing an element takes constant time [O(1)] and adding an element takes O(n) time [worst case]. In LinkedList adding an element takes O(n) time and accessing also takes O(n) time but LinkedList uses more memory than ArrayList.

LinkedList and ArrayList are two different implementations of the List interface. LinkedList implements it with a doubly-linked list. ArrayList implements it with a dynamically re-sizing array.

As with standard linked list and array operations, the various methods will have different algorithmic runtimes.

For LinkedList<E>

get(int index) is O(n) (with n/4 steps on average), but O(1) when index = 0 or index = list.size() - 1 (in this case, you can also use getFirst() and getLast()). One of the main benefits of LinkedList<E>
add(int index, E element) is O(n) (with n/4 steps on average), but O(1) when index = 0 or index = list.size() - 1 (in this case, you can also use addFirst() and addLast()/add()). One of the main benefits of LinkedList<E>
remove(int index) is O(n) (with n/4 steps on average), but O(1) when index = 0 or index = list.size() - 1 (in this case, you can also use removeFirst() and removeLast()). One of the main benefits of LinkedList<E>
Iterator.remove() is O(1). One of the main benefits of LinkedList<E>
ListIterator.add(E element) is O(1). One of the main benefits of LinkedList<E>

^{Note: Many of the operations need n/4 steps on average, constant number of steps in the best case (e.g. index = 0), and n/2 steps in worst case (middle of list)}

For ArrayList<E>

get(int index) is O(1). Main benefit of ArrayList<E>
add(E element) is O(1) amortized, but O(n) worst-case since the array must be resized and copied
add(int index, E element) is O(n) (with n/2 steps on average)
remove(int index) is O(n) (with n/2 steps on average)
Iterator.remove() is O(n) (with n/2 steps on average)
ListIterator.add(E element) is O(n) (with n/2 steps on average)

^{Note: Many of the operations need n/2 steps on average, constant number of steps in the best case (end of list), n steps in the worst case (start of list)}

LinkedList<E> allows for constant-time insertions or removals using iterators, but only sequential access of elements. In other words, you can walk the list forwards or backwards, but finding a position in the list takes time proportional to the size of the list. Javadoc says "operations that index into the list will traverse the list from the beginning or the end, whichever is closer", so those methods are O(n) (n/4 steps) on average, though O(1) for index = 0.

ArrayList<E>, on the other hand, allow fast random read access, so you can grab any element in constant time. But adding or removing from anywhere but the end requires shifting all the latter elements over, either to make an opening or fill the gap. Also, if you add more elements than the capacity of the underlying array, a new array (1.5 times the size) is allocated, and the old array is copied to the new one, so adding to an ArrayList is O(n) in the worst case but constant on average.

So depending on the operations you intend to do, you should choose the implementations accordingly. Iterating over either kind of List is practically equally cheap. (Iterating over an ArrayList is technically faster, but unless you're doing something really performance-sensitive, you shouldn't worry about this -- they're both constants.)

The main benefits of using a LinkedList arise when you re-use existing iterators to insert and remove elements. These operations can then be done in O(1) by changing the list locally only. In an array list, the remainder of the array needs to be moved (i.e. copied). On the other side, seeking in a LinkedList means following the links in O(n) (n/2 steps) for worst case, whereas in an ArrayList the desired position can be computed mathematically and accessed in O(1).

Another benefit of using a LinkedList arises when you add or remove from the head of the list, since those operations are O(1), while they are O(n) for ArrayList. Note that ArrayDeque may be a good alternative to LinkedList for adding and removing from the head, but it is not a List.

Also, if you have large lists, keep in mind that memory usage is also different. Each element of a LinkedList has more overhead since pointers to the next and previous elements are also stored. ArrayLists don't have this overhead. However, ArrayLists take up as much memory as is allocated for the capacity, regardless of whether elements have actually been added.

The default initial capacity of an ArrayList is pretty small (10 from Java 1.4 - 1.8). But since the underlying implementation is an array, the array must be resized if you add a lot of elements. To avoid the high cost of resizing when you know you're going to add a lot of elements, construct the ArrayList with a higher initial capacity.

If the data structures perspective is used to understand the two structures, a LinkedList is basically a sequential data structure which contains a head Node. The Node is a wrapper for two components : a value of type T [accepted through generics] and another reference to the Node linked to it. So, we can assert it is a recursive data structure (a Node contains another Node which has another Node and so on...). Addition of elements takes linear time in LinkedList as stated above.

An ArrayList, is a growable array. It is just like a regular array. Under the hood, when an element is added at index i, it creates another array with a size which is 1 greater than previous size (So in general, when n elements are to be added to an ArrayList, a new array of size previous size plus n is created). The elements are then copied from previous array to new one and the elements that are to be added are also placed at the specified indices.

Ruby-on-rails – How to rollback a specific migration

rake db:rollback STEP=1

Is a way to do this, if the migration you want to rollback is the last one applied. You can substitute 1 for however many migrations you want to go back.

For example:

rake db:rollback STEP=5

Will also rollback all the migration that happened later (4, 3, 2 and also 1).

To roll back all migrations back to (and including) a target migration, use: (This corrected command was added AFTER all the comments pointing out the error in the original post)

rake db:migrate VERSION=20100905201547

In order to rollback ONLY ONE specific migration (OUT OF ORDER) use:

rake db:migrate:down VERSION=20100905201547

Note that this will NOT rollback any interceding migrations -- only the one listed. If that is not what you intended, you can safely run rake db:migrate and it will re-run only that one, skipping any others that were not previously rolled back.

And if you ever want to migrate a single migration out of order, there is also its inverse db:migrate:up:

rake db:migrate:up VERSION=20100905201547

Best Answer

Related Solutions

Java – When to use LinkedList over ArrayList in Java

Ruby-on-rails – How to rollback a specific migration

Related Topic