public class LocationBasedRole extends AbstractEntity{
#ManyToMany(fetch=FetchType.LAZY)
private Set<Role> roles=new HashSet<Role>();
#ManyToMany(fetch=FetchType.LAZY)
private Set<Location> locations=new HashSet<Location>();
}
public class Role extends AbstractEntity{
private String name;
}
public class Location extends AbstractEntity{
private String location;
}
I have an entity named locationBasedRole which has 2 properties named roles and locations. Both roles and locations have a #ManyToMany relation with locationBasedRole.
Now I want to have one property of each in a Vaadin Table. It should be something like this,
public class UserForm extends OgsAbstractForm<User>{
MTable<LocationBasedRole> locationBasedRoleTable = new MTable<LocationBasedRole>().withHeight("100%").withWidth("100%");
#Override
protected Component createContent() {
Set<LocationBasedRole> lbRoles=new HashSet<LocationBasedRole>();
roles.addAll(locationBasedRoleFasade.findAll());
BeanItemContainer<LocationBasedRole> bean=new BeanItemContainer<LocationBasedRole>(LocationBasedRole.class);
//It returns an error on the next both lines and I know the reason, but don't know how to solve it.
// If it was no ManyToMany relation and the properties weren't a collection, it would work
bean.addNestedContainerProperty("roles.name");
bean.addNestedContainerProperty("locations.location");
bean.removeContainerProperty("persistent");
bean.removeContainerProperty("id");
bean.addAll(lbRoles);
locationBasedRoleTable.setContainerDataSource(bean);
return new VerticalLayout(locationBasedRoleTable);
}
}
When I remove the properties from the NestedContainerProperties it shows me at least something in the table.
bean.addNestedContainerProperty("roles");
bean.addNestedContainerProperty("locations");
I could use any help!
Thanks in advance!
So if I understand your question right, you want to have the Collections of your BeanItemContainer-Entity displayed in one column each?
I see two possibilities for that.
Option 1 - use a wrapper class for your Sets and use addNestedContainerBean
One possibility would be to not use Sets inside your LocationBasedRole but to use a wrapper class that extends HashSet.
Then you could use the addNestedContainerBean method.
I created a small example with the BeanItemContainer-Entity Team
public class Team {
private String teamName;
private Members teamMembers;
public String getTeamName() {
return teamName;
}
public void setTeamName(String teamName) {
this.teamName = teamName;
}
public Members getTeamMembers() {
return teamMembers;
}
public void setTeamMembers(Members teamMembers) {
this.teamMembers = teamMembers;
}
}
Which consists of a name and teamMembers. The latter is of type Members:
public class Members extends HashSet<TeamMember> {
public String getMembers() {
return this.stream()
.map(member -> member.getFirstName() + " " + member.getLastName())
.collect(Collectors.joining(","));
}
}
Which is a simple wrapper for the Set that contains instances of TeamMember:
public class TeamMember {
private String firstName;
private String lastName;
private Integer age;
// getters and setters
}
As you can see in the Members class, there is a method getMembers which returns a String, containing a comma separated list of the team members names.
If we now use addNestedContainerBean("teamMembers") Vaadin tries to display all properties contained in the class Members. Vaadin will think getMembers is a getter for a String property called members and so generate a column for it.
Vaadin will also display a column "empty" because it will find the isEmpty method of Set and think empty is a property to display in a column. So we tell Vaadin to remove that column.
The final code of my example looks like:
protected Component createContent() {
Set<Team> teams=new HashSet<>();
for (int teamCounter = 0; teamCounter < 5; teamCounter++) {
Team team = createTeam();
addMembersToTeam(5, team);
teams.add(team);
}
BeanItemContainer<Team> bean=new BeanItemContainer<>(Team.class);
bean.addNestedContainerBean("teamMembers");
bean.removeContainerProperty("teamMembers.empty");
bean.addAll(teams);
teamTable.setContainerDataSource(bean);
return new VerticalLayout(teamTable);
}
The result looks like:
Option 2 - create fake getters and use addNestedContainerProperty
The only thing you have to do for this is extend your BeanItemContainer-Entity (LocationBasedRole) and create a fake getter for each Set you want to be displayed in a column. In your example those two fake getters could be public String getTheRoles() and public String getTheLocations(). Then you can use bean.addNestedContainerProperty("theRoles") and bean.addNestedContainerProperty("theLocations").
In my example my TeamMember class (the counterpart to your Role / Location classes) would still look like in the option above:
public class TeamMember {
private String firstName;
private String lastName;
private Integer age;
// getters and setters
}
And my Team class (your LocationBasedRole) would look like:
public class Team {
private String teamName;
private Set<TeamMember> teamMembers;
public String getTeamName() {
return teamName;
}
public void setTeamName(String teamName) {
this.teamName = teamName;
}
public Set<TeamMember> getTeamMembers() {
return teamMembers;
}
public void setTeamMembers(Set<TeamMember> teamMembers) {
this.teamMembers = teamMembers;
}
public String getMembers() {
if (teamMembers != null) {
return teamMembers.stream()
.map(member -> member.getFirstName() + " " + member.getLastName())
.collect(Collectors.joining(","));
} else {
return "No members";
}
}
}
Now you can tell vaadin to add the (not existing) property "members" and Vaadin will find the getter getMembers and use this for generating the column. We also have to tell vaadin not to display the original "teamMembers" property. So the final code is:
protected Component createContent() {
Set<Team> teams=new HashSet<>();
for (int teamCounter = 0; teamCounter < 5; teamCounter++) {
Team team = createTeam();
addMembersToTeam(5, team);
teams.add(team);
}
BeanItemContainer<Team> bean=new BeanItemContainer<>(Team.class);
bean.addNestedContainerProperty("members");
bean.removeContainerProperty("teamMembers");
bean.addAll(teams);
teamTable.setContainerDataSource(bean);
return new VerticalLayout(teamTable);
}
and the result looks like:
Related
I think the title is self-descriptive but I will give an example to elaborate on my question. I have a DTO class with few fields (a CarDataTransferObj class in my example). In another class (let's call it class A) I need to create a new instance of that object few times, but with only one field updated (length field in my example). Given DTO must be immutable in class A. As there is "many" fields in the class CarDataTransferObj, I thought about following approach (to avoid repeating code in class A):
#Builder
public class CarDataTransferObj {
private Integer id;
private String color;
private String manufacturer;
private String model;
private String uniqueIdNr;
private Integer nrOfDoors;
private EngineType engineType;
private Integer length;
private Integer safetyLevel;
public static CarDataTransferObj newInstanceWithUpdatedLength(final CarDataTransferObj car, final Integer newLength) {
return CarDataTransferObj.builder()
.id(car.getId())
.color(car.getColor())
.manufacturer(car.getManufacturer())
.model(car.getModel())
.uniqueIdNr(car.getUniqueIdNr())
.nrOfDoors(car.getNrOfDoors())
.engineType(car.getEngineType())
.length(newLength)
.safetyLevel(car.getSafetyLevel())
.build();
}
}
For me it smells like a little anti-pattern usage of static factory methods. I am not sure whether it's acceptable or not, hence the question.
Is using static factory method in the presented way an anti-pattern, and should be avoided ?
In my searching, I didn't come across anyone calling this1 an anti-pattern.
However, it is clear that if you try to do this using a classic builder that is not specifically implemented to support this mode of operation .... it won't work. For instance, the example CarBuilderImpl in the Wikipedia article on the Builder design pattern puts the state into an eagerly created Car instance. The build() method simply returns that object. If you tried to reuse that builder in the way that you propose, you would end up modifying a Car that has already been built.
There is another problem you would need to worry about. In we modified the Wikipedia CarBuilder example to add actual wheels (rather than a number of wheels) to the Car being built, we have to worry about creating cars that share the same wheels.
You could address these things in a builder implementation, but it is unclear whether the benefits out-weigh the costs.
If you then transfer this thinking to doing this using a factory method, you come to a slightly different conclusion.
If you are doing this as a "one-off", that's probably OK. You have a specific need, the code is clunky ... but so is the problem.
If you needed to do this for lots of different parameters, or combinations of parameters, this is not going to scale.
If the objects that are created are mutable, then this approach is could be problematic in a multi-threaded environment depending on how you control access to the objects you are using as templates.
1 - There are no clear measurable criteria for whether something is an anti-pattern or not. It is a matter of opinion. Admittedly, for many anti-patterns, there will be wide-scale agreement on that opinion.
It seems a little inefficient to construct an entirely new instance via a builder every time you want to make a new copy with a small modification. More significantly, it sounds like the places where you need the class to be immutable are isolated to places like class A. Why not try something like this:
public interface ICarDataTransferObject {
public Integer GetId();
public String GetColor();
public String GetManufacturer();
public String GetModel();
public String GetUUID();
public Integer GetDoorCount();
public EngineType GetEngineType();
public Integer GetLength();
public Integer GetSafteyLevel();
}
public class CarDataTransferObject Implements ICarDataTransferObject {
private Integer _id;
private String _color;
private String _manufacturer;
private String _model;
private String _uniqueIdNr;
private Integer _nrOfDoors;
private EngineType _engineType;
private Integer _length;
private Integer _safetyLevel;
public Integer GetId() { return _id; }
public void SetId(Integer id) { _id = id; }
public String GetColor() { return _color; }
public void SetColor(String color) { _color = color; }
public String GetManufacturer() { return _manufacturer; }
public void SetManufacturer(String manufacturer) { _manufacturer = manufacturer; }
public String GetModel() { return _model; }
public void SetModel(String model) { _model = model; }
public String GetUUID() { return _uniqueIdNr; }
public void SetUUID(String uuid) { _uniqueIdNr = uuid; }
public Integer GetDoorCount() { return _nrOfDoors; }
public void SetDoorCount(Integer count) { _nrOfDoors = count; }
public EngineType GetEngineType() { return _engineType; }
public void SetEngineType(EngineType et) { _engineType = et; }
public Integer GetLength() { return _length; }
public void SetLength(Integer length) { _length = length; }
public Integer GetSafteyLevel() { return _safetyLevel; }
public void SetSafteyLevel(Integer level) { _safteyLevel = level; }
public CarDataTransferObject() {}
public CarDataTransferObject(ICarDataTransferObject other) { ... }
public ReadOnlyCarDataTransferObject AsReadOnly() {
return ReadOnlyCarDataTransferObject (this);
}
}
}
public class ReadOnlyCarDataTransferObject Implements ICarDataTransferObject {
private ICarDataTransferObject _dto = null;
public Integer GetId() { return _dto.GetId(); }
public String GetColor() { return _dto.GetColor(); }
public String GetManufacturer() { return _dto.GetManufacturer(); }
public String GetModel() { return _dto.GetModel(); }
public String GetUUID() { return _dto.GetUUID(); }
public Integer GetDoorCount() { return _dto.GetDoorCount(); }
public EngineType GetEngineType() { return _dto.GetEngineType(); }
public Integer GetLength() { return _dto.GetLength(); }
public Integer GetSafteyLevel() { return _dto.GetSafteyLevel; }
public ReadOnlyCarDataTransferObject (ICarDataTransferObject other) {
_dto = other;
}
}
Now when you want class A to have a copy no one can modify, just use the copy constructor and only expose a ReadOnly version of that copy.
public class A {
ICarDataTransferObject _dto;
ReadOnlyCarDataTransferObject _readOnlyDTO;
public ICarDataTransferObject GetDTO() { return _readOnlyDTO; }
public A(ICarDataTransferObject dto) {
_dto = new CarDataTransferObject(dto);
_readOnlyDTO = new ReadOnlyCarDataTransferObject(_dto);
}
}
You commonly see this approach in .NET applications.
While it is debatable whether your static method is an anti-pattern or not, it surely won't scale for combinations of different attributes. Nonetheless, even if it's not an anti-pattern, I think there is a better way to accomplish what you need.
There's a variant of the traditional builder pattern that, instead of creating a new empty builder, accepts an already built object and creates an already initialized builder. Once you create the builder this way, you simply change the length attribute in the builder. Finally, build the object. In plain code (no Lombok, sorry) it could be like this:
public class CarDataTransferObj {
private Integer id;
private String color;
// other attributes omitted for brevity
private Integer length;
// Private constructor for builder
private CarDataTransferObj(Builder builder) {
this.id = builder.id;
this.color = builder.color;
this.length = builder.length;
}
// Traditional factory method to create and return builder
public static Builder builder() {
return new Builder();
}
// Factory method to create and return builder initialized from an instance
public static Builder builder(CarDataTransferObj car) {
Builder builder = builder();
builder.id = car.id;
builder.color = car.color;
builder.length = car.length;
return builder;
}
// getters
public static class Builder {
private Integer id;
private String color;
private Integer length;
private Builder() { }
public Builder withId(Integer id) { this.id = id; return this; }
public Builder withColor(String color) { this.color = color; return this; }
public Builder withLength(Integer length) { this.length = length; return this; }
public CarDataTransferObj build() {
return new CarDataTransferObj(this);
}
}
}
Now with all this infrastructure in place, you can do what you want as easy as:
CarDataTransferObj originalCar = ... // get the original car from somewhere
CarDataTransferObj newCar = CarDataTransferObj.builder(originalCar)
.withLength(newLength)
.build();
This approach has the advantage that it scales well (it can be used to change any combination of parameters). Maybe all this builder's code seems boilerplate, but I use an IntelliJ plugin to create the builder with two keystrokes (including the variant factory method that accepts a built instance to create an initialized builder).
I'm still new to java but..
I guess making a copy method which takes the CarDataTransferObj object variables and sets their values to another CarDataTransferObj object variables and changing the the length using it's setter method would be better idea
Example:
public class CarDataTransferObj {
private Integer id;
private String color;
private String manufacturer;
private String model;
private String uniqueIdNr;
private Integer nrOfDoors;
private EngineType engineType;
private Integer length;
private Integer safetyLevel;
public void Copy(CarDataTransferObj copy) { //Could add another parameter here to be the new length
copy.setId(id);
copy.set(color);
copy.setManufacturer(manufacturer);
copy.setModel(model);
copy.setUniqueIdNr(uniqueIdNr));
copy.setNrOfDoors(nrOfDoors));
copy.setEngineType(engineType));
copy.setLength(length);
copy.setSafetyLevel(safetyLevel));
}
}
public class SomeOtherClass {
CarDataTransferObj car1 = new CarDataTransferObj(); //Using this way made you able to use the constructor for a more useful thing
//You set the variables you want for car1 here
CarDataTransferObj car2 = new CarDataTransferObj();
car1.Copy(car2)
car2.setLength(newLength) //Set the new length here
}
I have set of objects of different types.
Ex : Employee emp, adress adr
These two classes have list of properties
public class Employee{
private Stringname;
private int age;
}
public class Adress {
private String HouseNo;
private string Street;
private string pin;
}
Each attribute is assigned with some 2 character value
Name (NA), age (AG), HouseNo(HN),Street(ST), pin(PN)
I need to construct a string with these data and delimit with a %
Output:
NA%Vidhya%AG%30%HN%80%ST%1st cross%PN%100100
Each class knows it own data best so I would let each class be responsible for generating the string. As I understand it the two char codes for each field are unique for each class and member and only used when generating the string so only the class would need them.
interface AttributeDescription {
String generateDescription();
}
public class Employee implements AttributeDescription {
//members...
public String generateDescription() {
return String.format(“NA%%%s%%AG%%%d”, name, age)
}
Then simply call this method for all objects implementing the interface.
AttributeDescription object = ...
String attr = object.generateDescription();
I don't think it can be generalized more than this given the requirements.
Update
It might be better to have a builder class for building the string to get a more unified behavior between classes. Here is an example
public class AttributeBuilder {
private builder = new StringBuilder();
public String getAttribute() {
return builder.toString();
}
public void add(String code, String value) {
if (value == null) {
return;
}
builder.append(code);
builder.append(‘%’);
builder.append(value);
builder.append(‘%’);
}
}
And then you would also have to implement add(...) methods for other data types in a similar fashion. The builder could then be used like
public String generateDescription() {
AttributeBuilder builder = new AttributeBuilder();
builder.add(“NA”, name);
builder.add(“AG”, age);
return builder.getAttribute();
}
I have a Mcq class associated to a MongoRepository, and I want to get an instance of my Mcq which apply several changes (Answers shuffle, Questions draw, etc). I declared my function "myMcq.getInstance()", but I can't do that because every time I want to send a Mcq in a ResponseEntity there is an error in the JSON output because Springboot thinks that there is a "instance" property in my class.
Here is my java class :
#Document(collection = "Mcqs")
public class Mcq {
#Id public String id;
#DBRef public User creator;
public String title;
public String categoryID;
public List<McqChapter> chapterList = new ArrayList<>();
public Difficulty difficulty;
public Mcq() {}
public Mcq(String title) {
this();
this.title = title;
}
public ArrayList<String> getQuestionsIDs() {
ArrayList<String> result = new ArrayList<>();
for (McqChapter chapter : chapterList) result.addAll(chapter.getQuestionIDs());
return result;
}
public McqInstance getInstance() {
return new McqInstance(this);
}
}
To prevent the error add #JsonIgnore to getInstance() method:
#JsonIgnore
public McqInstance getInstance() {
return new McqInstance(this);
}
Marker annotation that indicates that the annotated method or field is to be ignored by introspection-based serialization and deserialization functionality. That is, it should not be consider a "getter", "setter" or "creator".
In AppEngine I need to have an entity Diagram that contains an id, title and a variable list of elements of inner class Box, each one with id and description.
Please find below the definition. However, at time of defining the EntityProxy List getter and setter: "The type java.util.List<Box> cannot be used here".
DIAGRAM.java
#Entity
public class Diagram extends DatastoreObject {
public class Box {
private String boxId;
private String description;
public String get_id() {
return boxId;
}
public void set_id(String boxId) {
this.boxId = boxId;
}
public String getDescription() {
return description;
}
public void setDescription(String description) {
this.description = description;
}
#Indexed private String diagramId; // Primary key
#Indexed private String title;
#Embedded private List<Box> boxes;
public String get_id() {
return diagramId;
}
public void set_id(String diagramId) {
this.diagramId = diagramId;
}
public String getTitle() {
return title;
}
public void setTitle(String title) {
this.title = title;
}
public void setBoxes(List<Box> boxes) {
this.boxes = boxes
}
public List<Box> getBoxes() {
return boxes;
}
}
DIAGRAMPROXY.java
[...]
List<Box> getBoxes();
void setBoxes(List<Box> boxes);
[...]
Your inner class must be static. Nonstatic inner classes have an implicit link to an instance of the outer class, which would be really confusing from the perspective of loading and saving entities to the datastore.
Confusing, you have a Collection<Box> in the Box class? Doesnt sound right.. Anyways the inner Box class must be market static or be moved to a different file. Use the #Embed (version 4.0) annotation on the Box class.
Also, assuming DatastoreObject is the base of all your entities, you can make DatastoreObject as an #Entity and all its sub classes as an #EntitySubClass (index = true). Obviously all sub entities would be be saved under the same 'kind' (DatastoreObject) in the datastore.
In hibernate is is possible to map the same column with 2 properties of the same class, and have the possibility to reference both in queries?
Is sounds pointless but it would be worth for what I have to do.
In the underying example I could mark the second getter #Transient to keep the second getter, but I would lose the alias in queries, so I would like to keep both "myPropertyAliasOne" and "myPropertyAliasTwo".
#Entity
public MyEntity {
private String myProperty;
#Column(name="ACTUAL_VALUE")
public String getMyPropertyAliasOne(){
return myProperty;
}
#Transient
public String getMyPropertyAliasTwo(){
return myProperty;
}
}
If you want to have one column be mapped to two properties, why don't you just map one of them and set the other with the value of the first.
#Entity
public MyEntity {
#Column(name="ACTUAL_VALUE")
private String myProperty1;
private String myProperty2;
public void setMyPropert1(String str){
myProperty1 = str;
myProperty2 = str;
}
public void setMyPropert2(String str){
myProperty1 = str;
myProperty2 = str;
}
public void setMyPropert2(){
myProperty2 = myProperty1;
}
#Transient
public String getMyPropertyAliasOne(){
return myProperty1;
}
public String getMyPropertyAliasTwo(){
return myProperty2;
}
}
In this case, you manually have these properties always the same. (but I don't get it, why this redundancy is useful?)