Hi All,

I am new to hibernate Ineed some help regarding Optimistic locking using version.

I have implemented this in one of my project ,What I want is I need to check this implementaion wether it is working correctly or not in my project.

I want to know the procedure to check this and how to get that stale object exception. i.e. I wan a know the testing procedure.

I am looking forward for the help.

Thanks in advance.......

Optimistic locking is done using the version or timestamp property.
This creates an additional field in your table to hold the (respectively) current version or timestamp of the entity.

When persisting versioned entities, Hibernate issues a "update... where id=? and version=?" where the version is the one the entity had when first loaded.

If the entity is modified by another thread between the time the first thread loads and saves it, then the where clause shown above will not match it anymore (because the version field is now different) - hence causing the OptimisticLockException.

If you want to test that behavior, the easiest is to put a breakpoint in your application. When the execution is halted, change the data in your database (increase the version number by one), then release the thread...

Hello bertrand,

Thank you for ur sugession on my query . The solution u gave for testing is very good and also easy but I need to write a test case for that is it possilble if so plz tell me what to do

I need to check staleobjectexception

What do wanna test? The fact that Hibernates throws the OptimisticLock exception in such case? If so, then you are writing a test case against Hibernate... which is not your job - you should rather test your application...

If you wanna test how your application behaves in such circumstances, then simply think about what will cause it to happen, and find a way to reproduce it in your test case!

Some hint:
- two threads accessing and modifying the data;
- to Hibernate sessions - one per thread of course;
- synchronization between the two so the first commits after the second;

bertrand,

yes thats true I got your point ...Once again thanks for ur help...