@Transactional 和继承

问题描述

我曾经为所有 spring 服务(类)添加 @Transactional 注释.然后我想:如果交易行为应该相同，我真的必须这样做吗?(当然，如果不应该，我们会在方法中添加带有其他参数的 @Transational.)我试图找到一些关于 @Transactional 继承的有用信息，阅读关于 @Inherited(看起来 @Transactional 是 @Inherited).我在下面的例子中试验了 rollbackFor 和 noRollbackFor，它看起来像 GenericService 中的 @Transactional 为 doSmthSpecific.

I used to add @Transactional annotations to all spring services (classes). And then I thought: do I really have to, if the transactinal behaviour should be the same? (Of course, if it shouldn't, we would add @Transational with other parameters to methods.) I tried to find some useful information about inheritance with @Transactional, read about @Inherited (and it looks like @Transactional is @Inherited). I experimented with rollbackFor and noRollbackFor for the following example, and it looks like @Transactional in GenericService worked for doSmthSpecific.

@Transactional
public abstract class GenericService {
    public void doSmthGeneric() {
    }
}

public class SpecificService extends GenericService {
    public void doSmthSpecific() {
    }
}

如果 GenericService 是一个接口，我认为 它不起作用.我想这更像是如果我错了，请纠正我"的问题，我想知道将 @Transactional 添加到超类是否真的可以，如果我在这里遗漏了什么.详细解释(或此类解释的链接)将不胜感激.

And in case GenericService was an interface, I think it wouldn't work. I guess it's more like "correct me if I'm wrong" question, I'd like to know if it's actually all right to add @Transactional to superclass only, and if I'm missing something here. A detailed explanation (or a link to such explanation) would be appreciated.

推荐答案

引用 文档

您可以在接口定义、接口上的方法、类定义或类上的公共方法之前放置@Transactional 注解...

他们还建议不要注释接口/接口方法.

They also recommend against annotating interfaces/interface methods.

Spring 建议您只使用 @Transactional 注释来注释具体类(和具体类的方法)，而不是注释接口.您当然可以将 @Transactional 注释放在接口(或接口方法)上，但是如果您使用基于接口的代理，这只能像您期望的那样工作.

后来他们继续解释说，当您使用基于类的代理或 aspectj 编织时，它不起作用.

Later they go on to explain that it doesn't work when you're using class-based proxies or aspectj weaving.

这篇关于@Transactional 和继承的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持！