I am currently making a service in which there are lots of public API's. And the response and request objects overlap a lot. So, I was thinking that is there a way by which we can generalise the pojo creation for the request/response objects.
Sometimes the response object is identical to the request object with one or two extra fields.
Let me give you an example.
#Data
public class Request {
private A objA;
private B objB;
}
#Data
public class Response {
private A objA;
private B objB;
private C objC;
}
#Data
public class A {
private D objD;
}
#Data
public class B {
private String sB;
private E obje;
}
#Data
public class C {
private String sC;
}
Similary, D and E are pojos as well. The thing is that there is a lot of similarity(overlapping fields) in request/response objects.
Your solution is probably inheritance: Create a parent abstract object type with the overlapping fields and have the request and response objects extend it and specify any extra (unique) fields they need.
Inheritence
public abstract class Common {
private String overlapfield1;
private String overlapfield2
}
public class Request extends Common {
private String requestField1;
private String requestField2;
}
public class Response extends Common {
private String responseField1;
private String responseField2;
}
You could also approach this using composition: Create an object type with the overlapping fields and include this object as a sub-object of the Request/Response types:
Composition
public class Common {
private String overlapfield1;
private String overlapfield2
}
public class Request {
private String requestField1;
private String requestField2;
private Common common;
}
public class Response {
private String responseField1;
private String responseField2;
private Common common;
}
There are pros and cons to each approach which are widely discussed on this and other boards. These however, are the two standard approaches to dealing with such a problem.
It really depends on what you are trying to achieve. I don't see it being a huge problem repeating the fields but you've given an abstract use case rather than a real world situation where I can understand what you're trying to achieve.
Perhaps you want to pass your #Data objects to the same services? In which case you might want to use interfaces because a class can implement multiple interfaces.
Eg
public interface AContiner {
A getA();
void setA(A a);
}
public interface BContiner {
B getB();
void setB(B b);
}
#Data
public class Bean1 implements AContainer {
private A a;
}
#Data
public class Bean2 implements AContainer, BContainer {
private A a;
private B b;
}
public class MyFantasticService {
public void doStuffWithA(AContainer data) {
System.out.println(data.getA());
}
public void doStuffWithB(BContainer data) {
System.out.println(data.getB());
}
}
Related
The situation is this:
On the side of the domain we have a superclass let's call it Plant
and two subclasses Vegestable and DecorativePlant.
public abstract class Plant {
private String name;
#Mapping("elementValue.carbonValue")
private int carbonValue;
#Mapping("elementValue.oxygenValue")
private int oxygenValue;
}
public abstract class Vegestable extends Plant {
private int nutritionValue;
}
public abstract class DecorativePlant extends Plant {
private int rating;
}
now on the side of our soap api we have simular objects. The main difference
would probably be that we don't want the decorative plant on the soap-side to have
public class Vegestable {
private int nutrition;
private ElementValue elementValue;
}
public class DecorativePlant {
private int rating;
}
public class ElementValue {
private int carbonValue;
private int oxygenValue;
}
So now I was wondering if it is possible to specify that Dozer only maps the fields carbonValue and oxygenValue for subclasses of Vegestable and not for subclasses of DecorativePlant? If it's possible in Dozer than I won't have to actually alter my classes on the domain level and basically place the carbonValue and oxygenValue in both subclasses and than Dozer won't do the mapping for DecorativePlant. (A side from the #Mapping annotation I'm doing all my mapping in a mappings.xml file.)
Big thanks in advance!
I have the following class structure (it actually is a VO layer with Hibernate mappings):
public abstract class abstractClassVO {
private int id;
private String name;
}
public class concreteClassAVO extends abstractClassVO {
private String aAttribute;
}
public class concreteClassBVO extends abstractClassVO {
private Long bAttribute;
}
And the equivalent DTO objects:
public abstract class abstractClassDTO {
private int id;
private String name;
}
public class concreteClassADTO extends abstractClassDTO {
private String aAttribute;
}
public class concreteClassBDTO extends abstractClassDTO {
private Long bAttribute;
}
Then I have another object like this:
public class compositeObject {
private int anAttribute;
private abstractClassVO myInstance;
}
and its equivalent:
public class compositeObjectDTO{
private int anAttribute;
private abstractClassDTO myInstance;
}
How can I tell dozer to automatically map myInstance to the specific DTO that corresponds to the concrete class implementation in the VO layer?
Currently, out of the box, Dozer isn't even putting anything in the myInstance field of the compositeObjectDTO class. My guess is that it's due to the fact that abstractClassDTO it is an abstact class, and since it cannot determine the implementation, it does nothing. I am not getting any exceptions.
Dozer can't do it out of the box but you could write a helper that would determine destination class by source class. You can get this information from DozerBeanMapper.getMappingMetadata().getClassMappings* methods. These methods return list of ClassMappingMetadata that contains destination class. You just only need to chech whether destination class is inherited from abstractClassDTO. This check can be omitted if you only have one mapping for one VO.
For bi-directional mapping you should additionally check ClassMappingMetadata.MappingDirection field.
#Entity
#Inheritance(strategy = InheritanceType.JOINED)
public class A{
private long id;
}
#Entity
public class B extends A{
private String bProperty;
}
#Entity
public class C extends A{
private String cProperty;
}
#Entity
public class Person{
#OneToMany
private Set<A> a;
}
when I use person.getVehicles
How can I know the A is B or C?
I'm using instanceof to check and cast it to get bProperty or cProperty.
Is there any other better way?
The only safe way is to use a polymorphic method. Even instanceof will not work because the instance might actually be a proxy, i.e. a subclass of A that is neither a B or a C, but delegates to a B or a C.
public class A{
private long id;
public abstract boolean isB();
public abstract boolean isC();
public abstract String getBProperty();
public abstract String getCProperty();
}
public class B extends A{
private String bProperty;
public boolean isB() {
return true;
}
public boolean isC() {
return false;
}
public String getBProperty() {
return bProperty;
}
public String getCProperty() {
throw new IllegalStateException("I'm not a C");
}
}
To be cleaner, try using the visitor pattern. I've written a blog post about it. It's in French, but it should be easily translatable.
I'm trying to deserialize JSON Array, which is persisted into my MongoDB, to a Java object by using Jackson. I found many tutorials mentioned to handle this polymorphism by adding:
#JsonTypeInfo(use=Id.CLASS,property="_class")
to a Super-class. However, in my case, I can't be able to modify the Super-class. So, are there some solutions to solve it without modifying the Super-class? Here is my code:
public class User {
#JsonProperty("_id")
private String id;
private List<Identity> identities; // <-- My List contains objects of an abstract class; Identity
public User(){
identities = new ArrayList<Identity>();
}
public static Iterable<User> findAllUsers(){
return users().find().as(User.class); // Always give me the errors
}
/*More code*/
}
It always give me the error - Can not construct instance of securesocial.core.Identity, problem: abstract types either need to be mapped to concrete types, have custom deserializer, or be instantiated with additional type information.
You can use #JsonDeserilize annotation to bind a concrete implementation class to an abstract class. If you cannot modify your abstract class you can use the Jackson Mix-in annotations to tell Jackson how to find the implementation class.
Here is an example:
public class JacksonAbstract {
public static class User {
private final String id;
private final List<Identity> identities;
#JsonCreator
public User(#JsonProperty("_id") String id, #JsonProperty("identities") List<Identity> identities) {
this.id = id;
this.identities = identities;
}
#JsonProperty("_id")
public String getId() {
return id;
}
public List<Identity> getIdentities() {
return identities;
}
}
public static abstract class Identity {
public abstract String getField();
}
#JsonDeserialize(as = IdentityImpl.class)
public static abstract class IdentityMixIn {
}
public static class IdentityImpl extends Identity {
private final String field;
public IdentityImpl(#JsonProperty("field") String field) {
this.field = field;
}
#Override
public String getField() {
return field;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException {
User u = new User("myId", Collections.<Identity>singletonList(new IdentityImpl("myField")));
ObjectMapper mapper = new ObjectMapper();
mapper.addMixInAnnotations(Identity.class, IdentityMixIn.class);
String json = mapper.writerWithDefaultPrettyPrinter().writeValueAsString(u);
System.out.println(json);
System.out.println(mapper.readValue(json, User.class));
}
}
I am using Jackson to convert json to an object. However, the json looks wrong. Here is what I am seeing:
"interfaces": {"interfaces": [
"HA_1",
"HA_2"
]},
There should not be two interfaces. I want to see:
"interfaces": [
"HA_1",
"HA_2"
]},
I am not sure how this is happening. I can show you my conversion classes:
#XmlAccessorType(XmlAccessType.NONE)
public class InterfacesRep implements Serializable {
private static final long serialVersionUID = -1503363608473342020L;
#XmlElement(name = "interface", type = String.class)
private Collection<String> all = new ArrayList<String>();
public InterfacesRep() {}
public InterfacesRep(Collection<String> all) {
this.all = all;
}
public Collection<String> getAll() {
return all;
}
public void setAll(List<String> all) {
this.all = all;
}
}
And the outer class:
public class OuterRep {
private static final long serialVersionUID = -1719378545790376294L;
#XmlElement(name = "interfaces", type=InterfacesRep.class)
private InterfacesRep interfaces;
public OuterRep() {
}
public InterfacesRep getInterfaces() {
return interfaces;
}
public void setInterfaces(InterfacesRep interfaces) {
this.interfaces = interfaces;
}
}
Do you know why I see "interfaces" twice?
Because you are defining it on the property at both levels.The outer class has a property name called "interfaces" and the inner class's Collection is also named "interfaces".
This simplest fix (in my mind) would be to not use a wrapper class for the Collection. Just put the collection in the outer class.
On a side note, why are you using Jackson's XML annotations to serialize JSON?