views:

285

answers:

1

Hi,

we are using Toplink implementation of JPA + Spring + EJB. In one of our EJBs we have something like this:

public void updateUser(long userId, String newName){
    User u = em.get(User.class, userId);
    u.setName(newName);
    // no persist is invoked here
}

So, basically this updateUser method is supposed to update the name of user with given id. But author of this method forgot to invoke em.persist(u);

And the strangest thing is that it works fine. How can it be? I was a 100% sure that without invoking em.persist() or em.merge() there is no way that changes could have been saved into database. Could they? Is there any scenario when this could happen?

Thanks

+2  A: 

You're working with a managed entity. If the entity does not become detached because its entity manager is closed, all changes done to the entity are reflected to the database when the session is flushed/closed and the transaction commited.

From the JEE tutorial:

The state of persistent entities is synchronized to the database when the transaction with which the entity is associated commits.

Edit for clarity and explanation: So there are three distinct modes that an entity could be in during its lifecycle:

  • Unsaved: The entity has been instantiated, but persist() has not been called yet.
  • Managed: The entity has been persisted using persist(), or loaded from the database, and is associated with an entity manager session. All changes to the entity are reflected to the database when the entity manager session is flushed.
  • Detached: The entity's entity manager session was closed. Changes to the entity will not be reflected to the database automatically, but can be merged explicitly using the merge() command.
Henning
Thanks. This helped a lot! I always thought that invoking em.persist() is required, even if object is associated with current EntityManager.
anthony