I'm currently working on improving some old uni assignments moving them from serializable files to any other form of storage, mainly SQL Databases.
I understand the concept of relational database design and the similarities with OOP Classes, however, I'm not entirely sure how to approach this issue from an OOP design perspective.
Right now I have a Hotel class with a List of Rooms as property, each Room has a list of Guests as property (full code here)
Back when using files I could mark these classes with the Serializable interface and store the parent object in a single file. But when using relational DB, I store each list as a single table and use separate queries to obtain the corresponding results. Same goes for the add() operation: with databases, I can do something like Guest.add() and add all the required fields directly to the database, whereas with my current design I need to call Room.getGuestList().add() (or a similar approach).
I totally understand that neither of both approaches is ideal, as both classes should be only worried about storing the data and not about the implementation of an add method, but even if I separate this in a single class, shall I still define a List property within each class?
I'm pretty sure I'm missing a design pattern here, but I cannot find the one that would solve this problem or maybe it's just that I've been taught wrong.
Thanks for your answers
Edit: I've decided thanks to the answers provided to transform my implementation following the DAO pattern as explained in this question and the Oracle documentation.
Normally you would have 3 tables: hotels, rooms, guests.
Rooms would have relation to hotel (hotel id) and guest would have relation to room(room id). That's it.
Those relations can be easily reflected in OOP using some sort of ORM. JPA with Hibernate is an excellent example. Check that out. You will be able to get hotel, its rooms and all guests of hotel just like you described without using a single SQL query in your code.
Related
I'm confused with designing a client software with database integration to what should be a member variable of the class or just a query to the database. Let me be specific with a trivial example:
If I have, lets say, a Student class, which has a list of "friends" that are Student objects. Should my software design have an ArrayList<Student> as a member variable of the Student class or should the Database deal with the relationship itself and the Student class doesn't account for those "friends"? How should a proper UML class-diagram be in this case?
This question is broader than you may think, as there are many ways to deal with it. Here some first ideas:
Let's start with a quick class diagram. The friendship between students is a many-to-many association.
In a database, a many-to-many association is usually implemented using an association table. So you'd have two tables: STUDENTS and FRIENDSHIPS with pairs of ids of befriended students:
To load a Student object from the database, you'd read the data in a STUDENTS row and use it to initialize your object. For the friendship, you'd have to read the relevant FRIENDSHIPS rows.
But how to use these tables in the application?
A first possibility would be to load each Student friend and insert it in the ArrayList<Student>. But each loaded student is like the first student and could have oneself friends that you'd have to load as well! You'd end up loading a lots of students, if not all, just for getting the single one you're interested in.
A second possibility would be use an ArrayList<StudentId> instead of an ArrayList<Student> and populate it. You'd then load the friends just in time, only when needed. But this would require some more important changes in your application.
A third possibility is not to expose an ArrayList. Not leaking the internals is always a good idea. Instead use a getter. So you'd load the friends only if student.getFriends() is called. This is a convenient approach, as you'd have a collection of friends at your disposal, but avoid being caught in a recursive loading of friends of friends.
In all the cases, you may be interested in using a repository object to get individual or collections of students, and encapsulate the database handling.
Advice: as said, there are many more options, the repository is one approach but there are also active records, table gateways and other approaches. To get a full overview, you may be interested in Martin Fowler's book Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture.
You need a one-to-many relationship between Student and friends in both the relational database and the object model.
I am trying to figure out best practice for N-Tier application design. When designing the objects my UI needs and those that will be persisted in the DB some of my colleagues are suggesting that the objects be one in the same. This doesn't not feel right to me and I am ultimately looking for some best practice documentation to help me in this decision.
EDIT:
Let me clarify this by saying that the tables (Entity Classes) that are in the DB are identical to the objects used in the UI
I honestly do not understand why I would want to design this way given that other applications may want to interact with my Data Access Layer....or it is just ignorance or lack of understanding on my part.
Any documentation, information you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Just want to better understand these concepts and I am having a hard time finding some good information on the best practice for implementing these patterns (Or it is right in front of me on what I found and I didn't understand what was being outlined).
Thanks,
S
First of all, DAOs and database entities are two very different things.
Now to the question. You're right. The database entities are mapped to a database schema, and this database schema should follow the database design best practices, and be normalized. The UI sometimes dislays exactly the information from a given entity, but often show data that comes from multiple entities, in an aggregate format. Or, to the contrary, they only show a small part of a given entity.
For example, it would make sense for a UI to show a product name, description and price along with the name of its category, along with the number of remaining items in stock, along with the manufacturer of the product. It would make no sense to have a persistent entity containing all those fields.
In general and according to most "best practices" comments, yes, those two layers should be decoupled and there should be separate objects.
BUT: if your mapping would only be a one-to-one-mapping without any further functionality in the non-database-object, why introduce an additional object? So, it depends. (as usual ;-) ).
Don't use additional objects if the introduced overhead is bigger than the gain. And don't couple the two layers if re-usability is a first-class-goal. That may not be the case with some legacy applications, e.g.
I am learning hibernate an I came across Hibernate Mapping Component.
Why should we use it if we can have the same pojo class for student and address?
You can. But that doesn't mean you want.
Reason one: you want to model them differently
In objects you want to model something the best possible way. That means one thing are Students and other Addresses. In a future you could have more Address per student, or none, so migration to that model will be easier if you have two differents objects.
Think of it as high cohesion and low coupling (good design patterns). Each class has its meaning, its responsability, its limited range of action. The more isolated classes are, the more punctual changes will be. The more modular your code will be too.
By contrast, in tables you make concessions in order to gain performance and more direct queries. That means you can denormalize your model (like joining students and addresses).
Reason two: legacy models
By example. If you have a legacy single table and want to use two objects, you need this mapping. Or... if your application is already made, based on two objects, but your database is reengineered and you decide one table is better.
One more point is that Address (which is treated as component here) cannot have its own primary key, it uses the primary key of the enclosing Student entity.
I'm working on a project using Play Framework that requires me to create a multi-user application. I've a central panel where we add a certain workshop for a team. Thing is, I don't know if this is the best way, but I want to generate the tables like
team1_tablename
team1_secondtable..
Then when a certain request hits using the virtual host (e.x. http://teamawesome.workshop.com) I would need to maneuver the query to THAT certain table.
The problem is not generating the tables, but working with the models. All the workshops are going to have the same generic tables. In the model I would have to state the table, etc but then if this was PHP with doctrine I would have a template created them after creating the workshop team1, but in java even if I generate them I would have to compile them too which requires me to do more research.
My question is more Hibernate oriented before jumping the gun here and giving up on possible solutions. I'm all ears
I've thought of using NamedQueries, I don't know if I misread but I read in a hibernate book that you could query then add the result to a generic model so then I use that model to retain all my results...
If there are any doubts let me know, thanks (note this is not a multi database question, just using different sets of tables with unique prefixes)
I wonder if you could use one single set of tables, but have something like TEAM_ID as a foreign key in each table.
You would need one single TEAM table, where TEAM_ID will be the primary key. This will get migrated to tables and become part of foreign keys.
For instance, if you have a Player entity, having a collection of HighScores, then in the DB the Player table will have a TEAM_ID (foreign key from the Team table) and the HighScores table will have a composed foreign key (Player_id, Team_id) coming from the Player table..
So, bottom line, I am suggesting a logical partitioning of your database rather then a physical one (as you've considered initially).
Hope this makes sense, it definitely needs more thought, but if you think it's an interesting idea, I can think it through in more detail.
I am familiar with Hibernate and another web framework, here is how I would handle it:
I would create a single set of tables for one team that would address all my needs. Then I would:
Using DB2: Create a schema for each team copying the set of tables into each schema.
Using MySQL: Create a new Database for each copying the set of tables into each one.
Note: A 'database' in MySQL is more like a schema in other databases. (Sorry I'd rather keep things too simple than miss the point)
Now you can set up a separate hibernate.cfg.xml file for each connection (this isn't exactly the best way but perhaps best to start because it's so easy). Now you can specify the connection parameters... including the schema/db. Now your entity table, lets say it's called "team" will use the "team" table where ever it is connected...
To get started very quickly, when a user logs on create a user object in their session.
The user object will have a Hibernate SessionFactory which will be used for all database requests built from the correct hibernate.cfg.xml file as determined by parsing the URL used in the login.
Once the above is working... There are some serious efficiency concerns to address. That being that each logged on user is creating a SessionFactory... Maybe it isn't an issue if there isn't a lot of concurrent use but you probably want to look into Spring at that point and use a connection pool per team. This way there is one Session factory per team and there is no major object creation when a user signs in.
The benefits of this solution is that it should be easier to create new sets of tables because each table set lives in it's own world. There will only be one set of Entity Classes as opposed to the product of one for every team and table. The database schema stays rather simple not being complicated by adding team names and then the required constraints. If the teams require data ownership and privacy it will be rather easy to move the database to a different location.
The down side is that if the model needs to be changed for a team it must be done for each team (as opposed to a single table set using teamName as a foreign key).
The idea of using different tables for each team (despite what successful apps may use it) is honestly quite naïve, and has serious pitfalls when you take maintenance into account...
Just think what you will be forced to do if you discover you need a new table or even just an index... you'll end up needing to write DML scripts as templates and to use some (custom) software to run them on all the teams...
As mentioned in the other answers (Quaternion's and Octav's), I think you have two viable options:
Bring the "team" into your data model
Split the data in different databases/schemas
To choose the option that works best for you, you must decide if the "team" is really something you can partition your dataset into, or if it is really one more entity you want to bring into your datamodel.
You may have noticed that I'm using "splitting" here instead of "partitioning" - that's because the latter term is generally used by DBAs to indicate what we could call "sharding" - "splitting" is intended to be a stronger term.
Splitting is only viable if:
entities in different partitions do not ever need to reference each other
no query will ever need to access data from different partitions (this applies to queries used for reporting too)
As you might well see, splitting in this sense is not very attractive (maybe it could be ok now, but what when you find yourself wanting to add new features?), so my advice is to go for the "the Team is an entity" solution.
Also note that maintaining a set of databases/schemas is actually harder than maintaining a single (albeit maybe a bit more complex) database... again, think of what steps you should take to add an index in a production system...
The only downside of the single-databse solution manifests if you end up having multiple front-ends (maybe due to customizations for particular customers): changes to a shared database have the potential to affect all the applications using it, so you may need to coordinate upgrades to the different webapps to minimize risks (note, however, that in most cases you'll be able to change the database without breaking compatibility).
After all it's a little bit frustrating to get no information just shoot into the dark. Nevertheless now I have start the work, I try to finish.
I think you could do you job with following solution:
Wrote a PlayPlugin and make sure you add to every request the team to the request args. Then you wrote your own NamingStrategy. In the NamingStrategy you could read the request.args and put the team into your table name. Depending on how you add it Team_ or Team. it will be your preferred solution or something with schema. It sounds that you have an db-schema so it would be probably the best solution to stay with this tables and don't migrate.
Please make the next time your request more abstract so that you can provide some information like how many tables, is team an entity and how much records a table has (max, avg, min). How stable is your table model? This are all questions which helps to give a clear recommendation with arguments.
You can try the module vhost, but it seems not very good maintained. But I think the idea to put the name of the team into the table name is really weired. Postgres and Oracle has schemas for that. So you use myTeam.myTable. But then you must do the persistence by your selves.
Another approach would be different databases, but again you don't have good support by play. I would try this
Run for each team a separate play-server, if you don't have to much teams.
Put a reference to a Team-table for every model. Then you can use hibernate-filters or add it manually as additional parameter to each query. Of course this increase your performance. You can fix this issue with oracle partitions.
I'm trying to write a program with Hibernate. My domain is now complete and I'm writing the database.
I got confused about what to do. Should I
make my sql tables in classes and let the Hibernate make them
Or create tables in the
database and reverse engineer it and
let the hibernate make my classes?
I heard the first option one from someone and read the second option on the Netbeans site.
Does any one know which approach is correct?
It depends on how you best conceptualize the program you are writing. When I am designing my system I usually think in terms of entities and their relationships to eachother, so for me, I start with my business objects, then write my hibernate mappings and let hibernate create the database.
Other people are able to think better in terms of database tables, in whcih case that approach is best for them. So you gotta decide which one works for you based on your experience.
I believe you can do either, so it's down to preference.
Personally, I write the lot by hand. While Hibernate does a reasonable job of creating a database for you it doesn't do it as well as I can do myself. I'd assume the same goes for the Java classes it produces although I've never used that feature.
With regards to the generated classes (if you went the class generation route) I'm betting every field has a getter/setter whether fields should be read only or not (did somebody say thread safety and mutability) and that you can't add behavior because it gets overridden if you regenerate the classes.
Definitely write the java objects and then add the persistence and let hibernate generate the tables.
If you go the other way you lose the benefit of OOD and all that good stuff.
I'm in favor of writing Java first. It can be a personal preference though.
If you analyse your domain, you will probably find that they are some duplication.
For example, the audit columns (user creator and editor, time created and edited) are often common to most tables.
The id is often a common field.
Look at your domain to see your duplication.
The duplication is an opportunity to reuse.
You could use inheritance, or composition.
Advantages :
less time : You will have much less things to write,
logical : the same logical field would be written once (that would be other be many similar fields)
reuse : in the client code for your entities, you could write reusable code. For example, if all your entities have the same id field called ident because of their superclass, a client code could make the generic call object.getIdent() without having to find out the exact class of the object, so it will be more reusable.