I am using custom type converters with JOOQ, which work fine for tables but create uncompilable code for routines.
For example I have a public class DateConverter implements Converter<Date, LocalDate> but when auto-generating code some functions that accept a date as a parameter lead to the following code being generated:
public static final org.jooq.Parameter<java.time.LocalDate> VALUE_DATE = createParameter("value_date", org.jooq.impl.SQLDataType.DATE);
I understand that a related feature is planned for 3.5.0 that will probably solve the issue but I am on 3.4.4 and wonder if there is a workaround.
From your comments, I take that you're looking for a way to prevent jOOQ's code generator from erroneously applying converted data types to stored function parameters.
One workaround I can think of doing this right now is to ensure that none of the procedures / functions is accidentally matched in the code generator configuration. The <expression/> only matches either the fully qualified object name (e.g. the parameter) or the unqualified object name.
Another workaround would be to have two distinct code generation configurations: One for tables, the other for routines. That way, it would be much easier to configure converters...
Related
Synopsis: I'm trying to create an SQL update using jOOQ
DSL.using(connection)
.update(DSL.table("dogs"))
.set(DSL.field("age"), DSL.field("age").add(1))
.set(DSL.field("rabies"), "true")
.where(DSL.field("id").eq("Kujo"))
.execute();
Issue:
The method set(Field<Object>, Object) is ambiguous for the type UpdateSetFirstStep<Record>
Question: How do I create this update using jOOQ?
You ran into this problem: Reference is ambiguous with generics
Fixing your query
It's always a good idea to attach data types with your jOOQ expressions. In your particular case, you can work around the problem by specifying things like:
DSL.field("age", SQLDataType.INTEGER)
Or, shorter, with the usual static imports:
field("age", INTEGER)
Using the code generator
However, jOOQ is best used with its code generator, see also this article here. Not only will you avoid problems like these, but you also get compile time type safety (of data types and meta data), advanced features like implicit joins and much more.
Your query would then look like this:
DSL.using(connection)
.update(DOGS)
.set(DOGS.AGE, DOGS.AGE.add(1))
.set(DOGS.RABIES, true)
.where(DOGS.ID.eq("Kujo"))
.execute();
I have a Java enum as an input in a DMN decision table. The DMN call is embedded directly in the Java app. So take some enum:
public enum Foo {
ONE, TWO
}
I pass an instance of this enum as an input - dmnContext.set("Foo", foo);
I hoped to be able to set a decision table input for foo of type string, and have a rule that matched "ONE". However, this doesn't work, because there is no POJO-String conversion. In the Java code, I could store foo as a String and validate it against the enumerated values (i.e. check foo is in the set ["ONE", "TWO"]), but this will complicate other parts of the application.
How can I achieve this while still using an enum type?
Please refer to this existing JIRA record comment section, for the explanation about:
why you are experiencing that behaviour
and why you should convert your Java-enum to the expected DMN type (which I guess) is a FEEL:string , and not an enum
You can use Jackson to achieve this, instead of resorting to custom code or DMN model modification.
Don't hesitate to Subscribe to the JIRA linked above, as we're hoping of making that work out-of-the-box; but is not trivial since the DMN RTF is thinking about introducing Enumerations directly in DMN eventually, so we need to take into account today what might happen tomorrow.
Since you are linking to Red Hat Product documentation, a reminder that you are strongly encouraged to open a Customer Portal ticket at https://access.redhat.com/support/cases/#/ if you have a Subscription.
I will appreciate your feedback following there references/pointers and I hope those helps
In my application I need to use dynamic localization, so I cannot use Constants interface. I did use Constants for a while, but now I need texts to be changed without compiling so I had to find some other way.
So I am using Dictionary now. The thing is, when I now want to use text in UiBinder, I can only use methods without arguments. So I created class "StringIdentifiers" where I have the same methods I previously had in MyConstants, but I have to specify a body here for every method to return the specified String.
So for example I have:
Dictionary locale = Dictionary.getDictionary("myJsObjectWithStrings");
//and then the methods for returning the actual strings from the JS object
String loading(){
return locale.get("loading");
}
I would like the method to only be
String loading();
since the rest is always the same with the name of the method appearing as String parameter in the get() method. Possibly even returning some default value when the String is missing in the JS object. But I do not know how to do that. I checked the Constants interface, but I do not really understand the code there. Can someone please give me an example how to implement such a thing?
There is no standard feature in GWT to do this, but you could create one yourself. It's a bit of a stretch, but it should work by using the GWT generator mechanisch. In global terms it should work as follows:
Create an interface (say MyMessages) with a the method names.
To use it use MyMessages message = GWT.create(MyMessages.class). Where you need the text message.loading().
Create a generator that generates an class implementing the interface. This class will created at compile time and should contain the implementation of the interface methods, like in your example.
Add a generate-with tag in your gwt.xml file to make it work.
This is a bit of a brief explanation, but I hope it helps. For more background information about generators see: What is the use GWT generator? or http://blog.arcbees.com/2015/05/26/how-to-write-gwt-generators-efficiently/
You could even reuse some of GWT's annotation's of the i18n to add for example default texts. Add the annotation to your interface and in the generator scan the annotation and use it in the code generation part.
I'm currently evaluating JOOQ because I believe I started reinventing the wheel which looks very close to part of JOOQ :)
Now, while digging in great JOOQ documentation I've found that my use case lies somewhere between Using JOOQ as SQL Builder and Using JOOQ as SQL Builder with Code generation i.e. I would like to:
Create plain SQL strings like it is shown in Using JOOQ as SQL Builder part
Instead of using hard-coded DSL.fieldByName("BOOK","TITLE") constructs, I prefer storing name of a table along with it's column names and types like it's shown in Using JOOQ as SQL Builder with Code generation part
I prefer not to use code generation (at least not on regular basis), but rather creating TableImpl myself when new table is needed.
While digging in manual, I've found how table implementation should look like in chapter Generated tables. However, TableImpl class as well as Table interface should be parameterized with record type and the same goes for TableField class. I believe this is done for easier type inference when directly querying database and retrieving results, though I may be mistaken.
So my questions are:
Is there a guide in manual on how to create Table and TableField implementations? Or I can simply generate them once for my database schema and use generated code as a guideline?
How can I gracefully "discard" record type parameters in implemented classes? First, I thought about using java.lang.Void class as type parameter but then I noticed that only subclasses of Record are allowed... The reason is that I don't need record types at all because I plan to use generated by JOOQ SQL queries in something like Spring JdbcTemplate so mapping is done by myself.
Thanks in advance for any help!
Given your use-case, I'm not sure why you'd like to roll your own Table and TableField implementations rather than using the ones generated by jOOQ. As you stated yourself, you don't have to regenerate that code every time the DB schema changes. Many users will just generate the schema once in a while and then put the generated artefacts under version control. This will help you keep track of newly added changes.
To answer your questions:
Yes, there are some examples around the use of CustomTable. You may also find some people sharing similar experiences on the user group
Yes you can just use Record. Your minimal custom table type would then be:
class X extends TableImpl<Record> {
public X() {
super("x");
}
}
Note that you will be using jOOQ's internal API (TableImpl), which is not officially supported. While I'm positive that it'll work, it might break in the future, e.g. as the super constructor signature might change.
I'm developing a Scala extension to an existing Java ORM (Ebean). The goal of this project is to add as much type safety as possible to the ORM.
Instead of
Ebean.find(Product.class).fetch("name", "unit").findList()
I would finally like to be able to write something like
(objects of entity[Product] with attributes name and unit) getIt
(note that this is just a very first DSL approach).
The ORM model is already defined as
#Entity
public class {
public String name;
public String unit;
}
In order to achieve type safety at compile time for the attributes in the query, I would need to access them on e.g. a dummy object like (new Product()).name.
I think this is the best way to ensure that only such model members are used that exists on that class, but, at runtime, I need a way to recognize that this variable was accessed. Otherwise I would just call that member name and wouldn't know about this in my query.
Does anybody know a way how to achieve this? Is there a possibility to trace when a variable is accessed and to give that information, at runtime, to any other object?
I already thought about hooking into getters and setters instead of using public members in the model classes, but this would either make the query or the model very ugly. Another problem is that any additional specific methods would have to be added manually for each model.
I would be happy if anyone could suggest possible solutions. Thanks!
If you are willing to define the fields of your model objects as something like the Record Fields, what Emil suggested could work, but if you're building your solution on top of a Java ORM using custom types might be an issue. If you need to track field access I think your best bet will be runtime bytecode instrumentation using a library like CGLib or Javassist. You can pass an instrumented "dummy" object into the body of your function, then track which field was accessed in a thread local. That's how it's done in Squeryl.
You could take a gander at how the Lift folks have implemented Mapper and Records. It allows for type safe queries using companion objects (as well as using raw sql). It does require inheriting traits into your model and the fields are specified as objects and not regular vals. Might be helpfull though. You can find the source for the persistance stuff here.