-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 356
DATAJDBC-219 - add support for optimistic locking #124
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Closed
thombergs
wants to merge
1
commit into
spring-projects:master
from
thombergs:datajdbc-219-optimistic-locking
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How does this fail if we just use always
Long
? I'd have thought that it would simply work.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, if I use a
ConvertingPropertyAccessor
, it automatically converts from Long to the required type. The next push will contain a simplified version.And no, it currently does not work with an immutable version field. I'll add a test. I see the merit in having an immutable version field, but I fail to see how the code in
AggregateChange
handles modifying an immutable ID field. It uses aPropertyAccessor
, too, doesn't it?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The trick is that the
PropertyAccessor
creates a new bean with the new value for id/version and everything after that uses the new bean returned bypropertyAccessor.getBean()
. See the end of the method I linked to.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok, I get that. But in my case it fails even earlier with an
UnsupportedOperationException
right here: https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-data-commons/blob/master/src/main/java/org/springframework/data/mapping/model/BeanWrapper.java#L85BeanWrapper
seems to expect a wither method. Is the existence of a wither method a valid constraint for our use case?