I am working on a EclipseLink application, which uses Oracle Objects as IN and OUT parameters (while invoking stored procedure). As you know we have #Struct annotations available in Eclipselink for representing Oracle Object, I used it and it is working perfectly. But, looks like order of the fields declared in Struct annotated class matters a lot to map to correct field in oracle object. This causes maintenance issues and very difficult to code when object's properties are more. Is there a way in Eclipselink to say map Structure fields based on name and not with order.
Ex: Below is my Struct class. If by chance I declare variables in different order from fields list, wrong/incorrect mappings will happen while fetching records from stored proc. Its always mapping values to fields from top to bottom. #Column name annotation is not able to solve this issue.
#Struct(name = "REC_OBJECT",
fields = {"TRANS_ID", "PROJECT_ID", "LANGUAGE_CODE", "DESCRIPTION"})
#Embeddable
public class Master {
#Column(name = "PROJECT_ID")
private String projectId;
#JsonIgnore
#Column(name = "TRANS_ID")
private String transactionId;
#Column(name = "LANGUAGE_CODE")
private String languageCode;
#Column(name = "DESCRIPTION")
private String description;
}
Please suggest solution for this. Thank you.
Related
I am attempting to implement a Hibernate/JPA2 solution over an existing schema, which cannot be changed. Here is a minimal example of the existing schema:
CREATE TABLE REASON (
REASON_CODE CHAR(1),
REASON_DESCRIPTION CHAR(50))
CREATE TABLE HEADER (
REASON_CODE CHAR(1),
OTHERFIELD1 CHAR(40),
OTHERFIELD2 CHAR(40) )
Normally this would be the "correct" way from a DB perspective: Link REASON to HEADER by the REASON_CODE. However it's presenting me with an awkward problem in Java and I'm not sure of the best way to solve it. I've modeled these entities as follows:
#Entity
#Table(name="REASON")
public class Reason implements java.io.Serializable {
#Id
#Column(name="REASON_CODE", unique=true, nullable=false, length=1)
private Character reasonCode;
#Column(name="REASON_DESCRIPTION", nullable=false, length=25)
private String reasonDescription;
}
#Entity
#Table(name="HEADER")
public class Header implements java.io.Serializable {
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "REASON_CODE", nullable = false)
private Reason reason;
#Column(name="OTHERFIELD1")
private String otherField1;
#Column(name="OTHERFIELD2")
private String otherField2;
}
Once again, as far as I can tell, this is "correct" from a Java perspective - linking Header to Reason with a reference.
The problem is that when I need to use one of these Reason values in my code I wind up with awkward syntax like:
Reason r = reasonService.findOne('X'); // X is the REASON_CODE in the database record
// Do some processing with variable r
Or this:
header.setReason(reasonService.findOne('X'));
Ideally I could implement Reason as an enum like:
public enum Reason {
X_MARKSTHESPOT("X"),
C_MEANSSOMETHINGELSE("C"),
F_MEANSATHIRDTHING("F") ;
private String code;
private Reason(String code) {
this.code = code;
}
}
And then simply have this in my code:
header.setReason(Reason.X_MARKSTHESPOT);
But from what I understand that is not possible with JPA, which offers only EnumType.STRING (basically the name) or EnumType.ORDINAL (even worse, the index in the enum list). A possible way around this would be JPA 2.1's Converter, but I have never used it. I have also read here (in one of the answers) that a Hibernate User Type might be useful. One of our programmers has solved this in another app by writing two complete classes - an enum class for internal use and a "shadow" class which iterates through the enum and syncs the records in the database on every startup. But this seems like a kludgey way to do it. What is the best way to handle this, bearing in mind that the database schema cannot be changed?
Let's say, there's a Hibernate entity configured with field access by means of annotations. I would like to map a Java class field _name so that its logical name for Hibernate be name, for instance, when referred from HQL queries. I need this mostly for collections.
Anticipating improper suggestions: switching access type to "property" is not possible; the task has nothing to do with the name of the physical column.
Based on my understanding of your question -
You could define the entity like this. This will generate a hibernate table named (NewName_ABC with a column name)
#Entity
#Table(name = "NewName_ABC")
public class ABC
{
.
#Column(name = "name")
private string _name;
.
.
}
parallely can use liquibase to create the table.
Do you mean like this?
#Column(name = "name")
private string _name;
You can create the second property with a different name points to the same column and use it in HQL queries. But there is a restriction: only one of those properties can be mapped as insertable, updatable.
#Column(name="name")
private string name;
#Column(name="name", insertable=false, updatable=false)
private string alsoName;
You can use alias in HQL as you use in SQL. You don't need to specify any annotation for that. Annotations can be added while queries:
SELECT id from name _name
I'm developing an Java-application which stores its data via Hibernate in a database.
One feature of this application is to define templates like types, etc. for reuse. For instance the type has attributes and you can create instances of an type, which has values for the attributes.
The problem is, that I don't know how to ensure that only values for attributes can assigned which the type defines. In my solution there is a redundancy which cause the problem, but I don't know how to remove it.
My current (and problematic) approach looks like this:
#Entity
class Type
{
#Id
#Generated
private Long id;
#OneToMany(mappedBy="type")
private List<Attribute> attributes;
//...
}
#Entity
class Attribute
{
#Id
#Generated
private Long id;
#ManyToOne
private Type type;
//...
}
#Entity
class Instance
{
#Id
#Generated
private Long id;
#ManyToOne
private Type type;
//...
}
#Entity
class AttributeValue
{
#Id
#Embedded
private ResourceAttributValueId id;
#Column(name="val")
private String value;
//...
}
#Embeddable
public class ResourceAttributValueId implements Serializable
{
#ManyToOne
private ResourceStateImpl resource;
#ManyToOne
private ResourceAttributeImpl attribute;
//...
}
There the definition of the type is redundant: Type can be reached via AttributeValue->Attribute->Type and AttributeValue->Instance->Type
Another idea was to use type + attribute name as id of the attribute and instance + attribute name as id of the attribute value, but that doesn't solves my problem.
The key for correctly modeling "diamond-shaped" dependencies like this is the usage of identifying relationships:
(I took a liberty of renaming your entities slightly, to what I believe is a more consistent naming scheme.)
Note how we migrate the TYPE_ID from the top of the diamond, down both sides, all the way to the bottom and then merge it there. So, since there is only one ATTRIBUTE_INSTANCE.TYPE_ID field and is involved in both FKs, we can never have an attribute instance whose attribute type's type differs from instance's type.
While this avoids "mismatched" attributes, it still doesn't ensure the presence of attribute instances (if you support the concept of "required attribute"), which is best enforced at the application level. Theoretically you could enforce it at the database level, using circular deferred FKs, but not all DBMSes support that, and I doubt it would play nicely with ORMs.
Unfortunately, I'm not experienced enough with Hibernate to answer whether this can be mapped there and how.
See also:
Choosing from multiple candidate keys
How to keep foreign key relations consistent in a “diamond-shaped” system of relationships
I'm using JPA2 with EclipseLink implementation
![Simple table structure][1]
Here are the two tables which I try to map and the JPA annotations.
public class Story implements Serializable{
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.SEQUENCE)
Integer id;
#Temporal(TemporalType.TIMESTAMP)
#Column (name="DATE_CREATED")
Date dateCreated;
String title;
String description;
#Column(name="AUTHOR_ID")
Integer authorId;
#Column(name="COUNTRY_ID")
Integer countryId;
private String reviews;
#OneToMany(mappedBy = "story", cascade=CascadeType.ALL)
private List<Tip> tipList;
}
public class Tip implements Serializable{
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.SEQUENCE)
private Integer id;
private String description;
private Integer vote;
#ManyToOne (cascade=CascadeType.ALL)
#JoinColumn(name="STORY_ID", referencedColumnName="ID")
private Story story;
}
As a simple example I would like to persist a story and some story related tips in the same transaction.
Here is the section of code which does that:
Story newStory = new Story(title, body, ...);
EntityTransaction transaction = em.getTransaction().begin();
boolean completed = storyService.create(newStory);
//The tips are saved as a List<String>. This methods creates the needed List<Tip> from the Strings
List<Tip> tips = TipUtil.getTipList(tipList);
newStory.setTipList(tips)
transaction.commit();
I have no errors and all the entities are persisted in the database. The problem is that in the tip table the story_id field is always NULL. I can imagine that JPA is unable to get the new id from the story table. What's the correct approach here?
LE
In the current state of the code, the Tip entities are persisted but the country ID remains null.
With JPA, it is always recommended to update the relationship on both the sides in a bi-directional relationship. This is to ensure that the data is consistent in your application layer and nothing to do with the database.
However it is mandatory that you update the owning side of the relationship in a bidirectional relationship.
So, setting/not setting
story.setTipList(tips)
is up to you. But if you want the changes to reflect properly in DB then you mush call
tip.setStory(story)
as Tip is the owning side here, as per your code.
Also your code looks incomplete to me. Reasons is,
the entity returned by storyService.create(newStory) is managed but not the newStory. So just setting newStory.setTipList(tips) will not updated the db
Because you need to update the parent link story in each of your child.
The way its is done is to create a addTip(Tip tip) method in your Story class.
This method does :
tip.setStory(this);
tipList.add(tip);
If you don't need bedirectional approach, you can remove the story field in Tip and it will resolve your problem
Remove the
#Column(name = "STORY_ID")
private Integer storyId;
You are already declaring it in #JoinColumn(name="STORY_ID", referencedColumnName="ID")
That is why you are getting the error Multiple writable mappings exist for the field [tip.STORY_ID]
You should not be using PrimaryKeyJoinColumn, just JoinColumn, but having your complete class would help giving a certain answer.
PrimaryKeyJoinColumn would only be used if the story_id was also the id of the Tip (no id in Tip) and there was a duplicate basic mapping for it. It should rarely be used, and is not required in JPA 2.0 anymore as duplicate id mappings are no longer required.
I have a set of JPA POJO's that contain annotations required for mapping to my domain. I also want to expose some REST services that will interact with those domain objects.
My current task is to create an android application to access these REST services. I am not able to use the domain object due to the JPA annotations they contain. The Dalvik compiler complains.
So I am looking for a strategy to be able to leverage these domain objects in a way that an Android project can also use those objects and not have to duplicate those POJO's.
Victor's suggestion to externalise the JPA mappings to XML rather than use annotations would surely work, but might be inconvenient if you're getting your JPA objects from tooling that only generates annotations.
I assume that you need on the client side Java classes that match the objects you will serialise in your REST services.
It is possible, but very tedious, to create DTO objects - POJOs exactly matching the JPA objects with suitable constructors from the JPA objects. This seems like an undue amount of effort.
It must be possible to write a source-code processor to strip the annotations from the Java. I don't think a simple regex scripting solution will work, I guess that truly parsing the source is necessary, so I hesitate to guess how much work this would be. However according to this question's answers the basic set of tools is available. I would start with this approach.
I could work out with following strategy.
This strategy works very well when you dont want fetch whole collection , or fetch with some addition criteria,
, you may retrieve it(collection relation) with named query.
use separate DAO for CRUD operation on JOIN table of many to many relation
e.g.
User can have many accounts and account can be shared by many users.
create domain models/ DAO for all the three tables,
use relation mapping for just retrieval and for DDL use individual properties.
#Entity
#Table(name="account" )
public class Account {
#Id (name="accountid")
private Long accountId;
#Column
private String type;
// removed #OneToMany as it causes issue while serializing to xml
#Transient
private Collection accountUsers;
//rest of the properties n geter setter goes here
}
#Entity
#Table(name="user")
public class User {
#Id(name="userid")
private Long userId;
#Column
private String name;
// by making transient jpa / hibernate does not initialize it with proxy.. so it remains null
/* you can populate this property using named query whenever required .*/
#Transient
private Collection userAccounts;
// rest of the properties n getter setter goes here
}
#Entity
#Table(name="AccountUser")
public class AccountUser {
// whatever your strategy to implement primary key here ,
#Id (name="accountuserid")
private Long accountUserId;
/* please note this annotation , made insertable/updatable false , relation defined just for fetching relation
*/
#ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.EAGER)
#JoinColumn(name = "accountid", referencedColumnName = "accountid", insertable = false, updatable = false)
private Account account;
// look at insertable / updatable properties its turned off
#ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.EAGER)
#JoinColumn(name = "userid", referencedColumnName = "userid", insertable = false, updatable = false)
private User user;
//
#Column ( name = "userid" )
private Long userId;
#Column ( name = "accountid" )
private Long accountId;
#Column ( name="opendate")
private Date opendate;
}
/* use separate dao to save above beans */
// somthing like this
public class AccountDAOImpl extends GenericDAOImpl implements AccountDAO {
}
public class UserDAOImpl extends GenericDAOImpl implements UserDAO {
}
public class AccountUserDAOImpl extends GenericDAOImpl implements AccountUserDAO {
}
I tried to explain if need any clarification kindly revert back. thanks