I am working on JavaFX application and I want to know if there is a way to handle exceptions in one place.
I am doing inserts into database. And when an insert fails, I get an SQLException.
So, is it possible to handle all SQLExceptions (for all inserts) in one place?
I'm aware of:
Thread.setDefaultUncaughtExceptionHandler(...);
But this is probably not the way to go?
It is bad practice to call any code that executes your SQL query (or any other business logic that may take long to execute) directly in the JavaFX application Thread. (I've observed that under Windows JavaFX applications crash without even printing a stacktrace when an uncaught exeption is thrown in the application thread.)
I would suggest to call your SQL-related code using an javafx.concurrent.Task.
Using the setOnFailed() method you can have code invoked whenever an Execption is thrown. There you can look for the type of exception and call any method that handles your SQLException.
Task<SOME_TYPE> mySqlTask = new Task<>() {
#Override
protected SOME_TYPE call() throws Exception {
... // do sql stuff
return mySqlResult; // or null if not needed
}
};
mySqlTask.setOnFailed(event -> {
Throwable exception = mySqlTask.getException();
if (exception instanceof SQLException) {
// call code that handles the sql exception
}
});
// start the task in a separate thread (or better use an Executor)
new Thread(mySqlTask).start();
By the way, I don't think that using Thread.setDefaultUncaughtExceptionHandler(...); is the way to go neither.
Related
I want some kind of mechanism to have more information about a caught exception. (Specifically exceptions I throw myself to abort transactions) I've looked around and pretty much the only thing I could find was "Use the info log". This to me does not seem like a good idea. For one it is cumbersome to access and find the last message. And it is limited in size so at some point the new messages won't even show up.
So my idea is the following: Create a class NuException and pass an instance of that through all methods store an instance in the class where the work methods are located. When I need to throw an exception I call a method on it similar to Global::error() but this one takes an identifier and a message.
Once I reach my catch block I can access those from my object the class that contains the work methods similarly to how CLRExceptions work.
class NuException
{
"public" str identifier;
"public" str message;
public Exception error(str _id, str _msg)
{
//set fields
return Exception::Error;
}
}
class Worker
{
"public" NuException exception;
void foo()
{
throw this.exception.error("Foo", "Record Foo already exists");
}
void bar()
{
this.foo();
}
}
void Job()
{
Worker w = new Worker();
try
{
w.bar(ex);
}
catch (Exception::Error)
{
info(w.exception().message());
}
}
It works but isn't there a better way? Surely someone must have come up with a solution to work around this shortcoming in AX?
Short answer: yes.
While your "brilliant" scheme "works", it gets boring pretty fast, as you now must transport your NuException object deep down 20 level from the listener (job) to the thrower (foo). Your bar method and other middle men has no interest or knowledge about your exception scheme but must pass it on anyway.
This is no longer the case after the update.
There are several ways to go.
Use an observer pattern like the Event broker or in AX 2012 and newer use delegates.
Stick to the infolog system and you use an InfoAction class to peggy bag your information to be used later. It can be used to display a stack trace or other interesting information.
Use a dedicated table for logging.
The third way may seem impractical, as any errors will undo the insert in the log. This is the default behavior but can be circumvented.
MyLogTable log;
Connection con = new UserConnection();
con.ttsBegin();
log.setConnection(con);
... // Set your fields
log.insert();
con.ttsCommit();
Your way to go depends on circumstances you do not mention.
We are evaluating Grid Gain 6.5.5 at the moment as a potential solution for distribution of compute jobs over a grid.
The problem we are facing at the moment is a lack of a suitable asynchronous notification mechanism that will notify the sender asynchronously upon job completion (or future completion).
The prototype architecture is relatively simple and the core issue is presented in the pseudo code below (the full code cannot be published due to an NDA). *** Important - the code represents only the "problem", the possible solution in question is described in the text at the bottom together with the question.
//will be used as an entry point to the grid for each client that will submit jobs to the grid
public class GridClient{
//client node for submission that will be reused
private static Grid gNode = GridGain.start("config xml file goes here");
//provides the functionality of submitting multiple jobs to the grid for calculation
public int sendJobs2Grid(GridJob[] jobs){
Collection<GridCallable<GridJobOutput>> calls = new ArrayList<>();
for (final GridJob job : jobs) {
calls.add(new GridCallable<GridJobOutput>() {
#Override public GridJobOutput call() throws Exception {
GridJobOutput result = job.process();
return result;
}
});
}
GridFuture<Collection<GridJobOutput>> fut = this.gNode.compute().call(calls);
fut.listenAsync(new GridInClosure<GridFuture<Collection<GridJobOutput>>>(){
#Override public void apply(GridFuture<Collection<GridJobOutput>> jobsOutputCollection) {
Collection<GridJobOutput> jobsOutput;
try {
jobsOutput = jobsOutputCollection.get();
for(GridJobOutput currResult: jobsOutput){
//do something with the current job output BUT CANNOT call jobFinished(GridJobOutput out) method
//of sendJobs2Grid class here
}
} catch (GridException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
});
return calls.size();
}
//This function should be invoked asynchronously when the GridFuture is
//will invoke some processing/aggregation of the result for each submitted job
public void jobFinished(GridJobOutput out) {}
}
}
//represents a job type that is to be submitted to the grid
public class GridJob{
public GridJobOutput process(){}
}
Description:
The idea is that a GridClient instance will be used to in order to submit a list/array of jobs to the grid, notify the sender how many jobs were submitted and when the jobs are finished (asynchronously) is will perform some processing of the results. For the results processing part the "GridClient.jobFinished(GridJobOutput out)" method should be invoked.
Now getting to question at hand, we are aware of the GridInClosure interface that can be used with "GridFuture.listenAsync(GridInClosure> lsnr)"
in order to register a future listener.
The problem (if my understanding is correct) is that it is a good and pretty straightforward solution in case the result of the future is to be "processed" by code that is within the scope of the given GridInClosure. In our case we need to use the "GridClient.jobFinished(GridJobOutput out)" which is out of the scope.
Due to the fact that GridInClosure has a single argument R and it has to be of the same type as of GridFuture result it seems impossible to use this approach in a straightforward manner.
If I got it right till now then in order to use "GridFuture.listenAsync(..)" aproach the following has to be done:
GridClient will have to implement an interface granting access to the "jobFinished(..)" method let's name it GridJobFinishedListener.
GridJob will have to be "wrapped" in new class in order to have an additional property of GridJobFinishedListener type.
GridJobOutput will have to be "wrapped" in new class in order to have an addtional property of GridJobFinishedListener type.
When the GridJob will be done in addition to the "standard" result GridJobOutput will contain the corresponding GridJobFinishedListener reference.
Given the above modifications now GridInClosure can be used now and in the apply(GridJobOutput) method it will be possible to call the GridClient.jobFinished(GridJobOutput out) method through the GridJobFinishedListener interface.
So if till now I got it all right it seems a bit clumsy work around so I hope I have missed something and there is a much better way to handle this relatively simple case of asynchronous call back.
Looking forward to any helpful feedback, thanks a lot in advance.
Your code looks correct and I don't see any problems in calling jobFinished method from the future listener closure. You declared it as an anonymous class which always has a reference to the external class (GridClient in your case), therefore you have access to all variables and methods of GridClient instance.
I am working on a Windows Store (C++) app. This is a method that reads from the database using the web service.
task<std::wstring> Ternet::GetFromDB(cancellation_token cancellationToken)
{
uriString = ref new String(L"http://myHost:1234/RestServiceImpl.svc/attempt");
auto uri = ref new Windows::Foundation::Uri(Helpers::Trim(uriString));
cancellationTokenSource = cancellation_token_source();
return httpRequest.GetAsync(uri, cancellationTokenSource.get_token()).then([this](task<std::wstring> response)->std::wstring
{
try
{
Windows::UI::Popups::MessageDialog wMsg(ref new String(response.get().c_str()), "success");
wMsg.ShowAsync();
return response.get();
}
catch (const task_canceled&)
{
Windows::UI::Popups::MessageDialog wMsg("Couldn't load content. Check internet connectivity.", "Error");
wMsg.ShowAsync();
std::wstring abc;
return abc;
}
catch (Exception^ ex)
{
Windows::UI::Popups::MessageDialog wMsg("Couldn't load content. Check internet connectivity.", "Error");
wMsg.ShowAsync();
std::wstring abc;
return abc;
}
} , task_continuation_context::use_current());
}
I'm confused how to return the received data to the calling function. Now, I am calling this function in the constructor of my data class like this:
ternet.GetFromDB(cancellationTokenSource.get_token()).then([this](task<std::wstring> response)
{
data = ref new String(response.get().c_str());
});
I am getting a COM exception whenever I try to receive the returned data from GetFromDB(). But this one runs fine:
ternet.GetFromDB(cancellationTokenSource.get_token());
Please suggest a better way of chaining the completion of GetFromDB to other code. And how to get the returned value from inside the try{} block of GetFromDB() 's then. Please keep in mind I am a very new student of async programming.
If the continuation of the call to GetFromDB is happening on the UI thread (which I believe it will by default, assuming the call site you pasted is occurring in the UI thread), then calling get() on the returned task will throw an exception. It won't let you block the UI thread waiting for a task to finish.
Two suggestions, either of which should fix that problem. The first should work regardless, while the second is only a good option if you're not trying to get the response string to the UI thread (to be displayed, for example).
1) Write your continuations (lambdas that you pass to then) so that they take the actual result of the previous task, rather than the previous task itself. In other words, instead of writing this:
ternet.GetFromDB(...).then([this](task<std::wstring> response) { ... });
write this:
ternet.GetFromDB(...).then([this](std::wstring response) { ... });
The difference with the latter is that the continuation machinery will call get() for you (on a background thread) and then give the result to your continuation function, which is a lot easier all around. You only need to have your continuation take the actual task as an argument if you want to catch exceptions that might have been thrown by the task as it executed.
2) Tell it to run your continuation on a background/arbitrary thread:
ternet.GetFromDB(...).then([this](task<std::wstring> response) { ... }, task_continuation_context::use_arbitrary());
It won't care if you block a background thread, it only cares if you call get() on the UI thread.
There is an MDB and a sequence of stateless EJBs to do some work with message (WAS 7.0, Java EE 5, EJB 3.0, JPA).
Sequence (using CMT):
MDB accepts message
MDB persists entity with the message details
MDB calls EJB 1 passing entities ID,
EJB1 does its piece of work with the message, depending on whether EJB1 succeed or not it calls
EJB2 or EJB5 passing the ID
EJB2 does its piece of ...
and so on till the last EJB (running time is several minutes).
All of those happens in one transaction: so if something is thrown in EJB4 - everything that happened before in this transaction will be rolled back.
I've tried to use REQUIRES_NEW for all the subsequent calls but it seems that changes in previous calls is not visible for subsequent calls.
Also, transaction becomes to long and sometimes timed out.
I'd like to have separate, independent transactions for:
A receiving and persisting message
B processing in EJB1
C processing in EJB2
....
so if execution of EJB2 failed, message should remain in DB and result of execution in EJB1 should be persisted as well.
So main question is, using CMT - is it possible to have short and indipendent transactions for the sequence?
Some more
can the transaction originated in MDB be commited independently of
the results of the call to EJB1? Moreover -- commited before the call
to EJB1..?
can changes on an entity made inside the MDB be visile inside the call to a EJB1 method with REQUIRES_NEW attribute?
is there a way except BTM or WorkManager to achieve the goal?
You shouldn't have any issues with REQUIRES_NEW.
If you had this:
#EJB(..)
EJB1 ejb1;
#EJB(..)
EJB2 ejb2;
public void onMessage(Message message) {
Thing thing = getThingFromMessage(message);
persistThingStuff(thing);
ejb1.doThingStuffWithRequiresNew(thing);
ejb2.doThingStuffWithRequiresNew(thing);
}
That should Just Work(tm) with one caveat.
If ejb2 throws an exception, ejb1's work will be committed, but persistThingStuff will rollback.
But if you do something like:
public void onMessage(Message message) {
Thing thing = getThingFromMessage(message);
persistThingStuff(thing);
ejb1.doThingStuffWithRequiresNew(thing);
try {
ejb2.doThingStuffWithRequiresNew(thing);
} catch (Throwable t) {
youBetterLogThis();
}
}
That should prevent any exceptions from blowing out the work of the MDB, however if EJB2 is long running, any work done by the MDB is still pending and in an open transaction, waiting for it.
To get around a lot of these thing, we have a utility EJB function:
#TransactionAttribute(TransactionAttributeType.REQUIRES_NEW)
public <T extends Runnable> T runInTransaction(T runner) {
runner.run();
return runner;
}
Then we don't necessarily have to annotate specific methods for this.
#EJB(...)
UtilEJB utilEjb;
public void onMessage(Message message) {
final Thing thing = getThingFromMessage(message);
utilEjb.runInTransaction(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
persistThingStuff(thing);
}
});
ejb1.doThingStuffWithRequiresNew(thing);
try {
ejb2.doThingStuffWithRequiresNew(thing);
} catch (Throwable t) {
youBetterLogThis();
}
}
This will commit the MDB work immediately, even before EJB1.
I am very new to Workflow Foundation development, and am worried that I am opening serious holes in our business process handling by not properly handling application / database exceptions in custom activities.
I would appreciate some steps that I could take to add this resiliency to my custom activities so that I can easily use the designer and other tools to ensure that, as far as I can, I do not create custom activities that are brittle and likely to cause workflow cleanup issues.
Here are some options, at different execution stages, that are available for you to use to handle exceptions.
First option (at activity/workflow execution time):
First of all, on custom activities, you should always try to treat exceptions inside it's execution. Some activities might not work but the overall workflow can continue and, in such cases, log the error to persistence and even show the user that something didn't work as expected but the thing will continue are good options.
That being said there'll always be cases where an activity have to (and even should) thrown exceptions and those should be treated at workflow level. Something like: if this exception occurs on this activity, do this, otherwise, do that.
Lets imagine you've a custom activity which persists something to DB:
public sealed PersistIntegerToDb : CodeActivity
{
public InArgument<int> ValueToPersist { get; set; }
protected override void Execute(CodeActivityMetadata metadata)
{
try
{
// persist
}
catch(SqlException exception)
{
// re throws the SqlException
throw new SqlException("'ValueToPersist' wasn't persisted.", exception);
}
}
}
Then, in your code or through designer you've available TryCatch activity to catch that error and treat it the way you want:
var workflow = new TryCatch
{
Try = new PersistIntegerToDb
{
ValueToPersist = 10
},
Catches =
{
new Catch<SqlException>
{
Action = new ActivityAction<SqlException>
{
Handler = new WriteLine
{
Text = "An error occurred and the value wasn't saved! Anyway workflow will continue..."
}
}
}
}
}
Or you can terminate it using TerminateWorkflow.
Second option (at design time):
Ok, but you can argue that client doesn't know that he have to handle those cases. In that case, and this is an usability option you might consider, instead of making available PersistIntegerToDb on the designer, you can provide an activity already surrounded by exceptions catches to handle, through IActivityTemplateFactory:
public sealed PersistIntegerToDbFactory : IActivityTemplateFactory
{
public Activity Create(DependencyObject target)
{
return new TryCatch
{
Try = new PersistIntegerToDb
{
ValueToPersist = 10
},
Catches =
{
new Catch<SqlException>
{
}
}
};
}
}
Now you just add PersistIntegerToDbFactoryas if it were a regular activity:
new ToolboxItemWrapper(typeof(PersistIntegerToDbFactory), null, "Persist Integer");
Third option (at validation time):
Never forget to validate workflow before execution!
var validationResults =
ActivityValidationServices.Validate(workflow);
foreach(var error in validationResults.Errors)
{
Console.WriteLine(string.Format(
"Validation error '{0}', generated on activity '{1}' in the property named {2}",
error.Message,
error.Source.DisplayName,
error.PropertyName));
}
Fourth option (at application execution time):
You can handle all not treated exception that might happen during execution, using OnUnhandledException event:
var wfApp = new WorkflowApplication(activity);
wfApp.OnUnhandledException +=
delegate(WorkflowApplicationUnhandledExceptionEventArgs e)
{
if (e.UnhandledException is SqlException)
{
Console.WriteLine("Some data wasn't properly persited.");
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine("Unknown error: " + e.UnhandledException.GetType());
Console.WriteLine("With message: " + e.UnhandledException.Message);
}
Console.WriteLine("Ok, workflow will be abort");
return UnhandledExceptionAction.Abort;
};
Note that, at this stage, you can only Abort, Cancel and Terminate the workflow and that's the reason why you should 1) avoid throwing exceptions or 2) treat exceptions inside your workflow. OnUnhandledException is your last chance to end the workflow execution gracefully and should always be treated even if for logging purposes. Something like DivideByZeroExceptions can occur and are almost impossible to predict and catch at validation time, for example.
As far as custom activities goes you should treat them as any other piece of code. Handle the errors you can and let you can't handle the rest bubble up.
At the workflow level you can use the TryCatch activity and workflow persistence to deal with errors. Specially persistence is something people overlook often. Add Persist activities at appropriate steps in your workflow and set the workflow to abort on unhandled errors. Now you can go back in and reload the last good workflow state and retry the actions that cause an unhandled exception. A great way of recovering from failures with resources like databases that might be unavailable for some reason and then come back.