We Keep Coding

Programmatically ignore (omit) specific fields in JSON response of REST service WITHOUT altering the DTO object class

I have a DTO class and some REST services that sometimes return (among other things) a List of those DTOs.
I cannot alter that DTO, as it's used in several places of the project.
However, only for one specific REST service, I need to exclude some of the fields of that DTO object.
Basically I need to be able to apply this solution only at a certain point.
I tried applying #JsonFilter("restrictionFilter") to my DTO class, but then I get an error if I don't use that filter with a mapper every time I marshall the object into a JSON, like this:
final String writeValueAsString = mapper.writer(
new SimpleFilterProvider()
.addFilter("restrictionFilter",
SimpleBeanPropertyFilter.filterOutAllExcept("name", "sizeInByte"))
).writeValueAsString(objectsList);
The error is Cannot resolve PropertyFilter with id 'restrictionFilter'; no FilterProvider configured...

This issue sounds like a perfect Decorator design pattern use.
Create a new DTO with a constructor that gets the original DTO and create which get methods you want or ignore whatever get methods you like.
For example:
public class NewDto {
OldDto oldDto;
public NewDto(OldDto oldDto){
this.oldDto = oldDto;
}
public String getName(){
return oldDto.getName();
}
}
Now you will only need to return the NewDto object, like so:
return new NewDto(oldDto)

How can I refactor my service use single responsibility principle?

I read "Clean Code" book ((c) Robert C. Martin) and try to use SRP(single responsibility principle). And I have some questions about it. I have some service in my application, and I do not know how can I refactor it so it matched the right approach. For example, I have service:
public interface SendRequestToThirdPartySystemService {
void sendRequest();
}
What does it do if you look at the class name? - send a request to the third party system. But I have this implementation:
#Slf4j
#Service
public class SendRequestToThirdPartySystemServiceImpl implements SendRequestToThirdPartySystemService {
#Value("${topic.name}")
private String topicName;
private final EventBus eventBus;
private final ThirdPartyClient thirdPartyClient;
private final CryptoService cryptoService;
private final Marshaller marshaller;
public SendRequestToThirdPartySystemServiceImpl(EventBus eventBus, ThirdPartyClient thirdPartyClient, CryptoService cryptoService, Marshaller marshaller) {
this.eventBus = eventBus;
this.thirdPartyClient = thirdPartyClient;
this.cryptoService = cryptoService;
this.marshaller = marshaller;
}
#Override
public void sendRequest() {
try {
ThirdPartyRequest thirdPartyRequest = createThirdPartyRequest();
Signature signature = signRequest(thirdPartyRequest);
thirdPartyRequest.setSignature(signature);
ThirdPartyResponse response = thirdPartyClient.getResponse(thirdPartyRequest);
byte[] serialize = SerializationUtils.serialize(response);
eventBus.sendToQueue(topicName, serialize);
} catch (Exception e) {
log.error("Send request was filed with exception: {}", e.getMessage());
}
}
private ThirdPartyRequest createThirdPartyRequest() {
...
return thirdPartyRequest;
}
private Signature signRequest(ThirdPartyRequest thirdPartyRequest) {
byte[] elementForSignBytes = marshaller.marshal(thirdPartyRequest);
Element element = cryptoService.signElement(elementForSignBytes);
Signature signature = new Signature(element);
return signature;
}
What does it do actually? - create a request -> sign this request -> send this request -> to send the response to Queue
This service inject 4 another services: eventBus, thirdPartyClient, cryptoSevice and marshaller. And in sendRequest method calls each this service.
If I want to create a unit test for this service, I need mock 4 services. I think it's too much.
Can somebody indicate how can this service be changed?
Change the class name and leave as is?
Split into several classes?
Something else?

The SRP is a tricky one.
Let's ask two questions:
What is a responsibility?
What are the different types of responsibilities?
One important thing about responsibilities is that they have a Scope and you can define them in different levels of Granularity. and are hierarchical in nature.
Everything in your application can have a responsibility.
Let's start with Modules. Each module has responsibilities an can adhere to the SRP.
Then this Module can be made of Layers. Each Layer has a responsibility and can adhere to the SRP.
Each Layer is made of different Objects, Functions etc. Each Object and/or Function has responsibilities and can adhere to the SRP.
Each Object has Methods. Each Method can adhere to the SRP. Objects can contain other objects and so on.
Each Function or Method in an Object is made of statements and can be broken down to more Functions/Methods. Each statement can have responsibilities too.
Let's give an example. Let's say we have a Billing module. If this module is implemented in a single huge class, does this module adhere to the SRP?
From the point of view of the system, the module does indeed adhere to the SRP. The fact that it's a mess doesn't affect this fact.
From the point of view of the module, the class that represents this module doesn't adhere to the SRP as it will do a lot of other things, like communicate with DB, send Emails, do business logic etc.
Let's take a look at the different types of responsibilities.
When something should be done
How it should be dome
Let's take an example.
public class UserService_v1 {
public class SomeOperation(Guid userID) {
var user = getUserByID(userID);
// do something with the user
}
public User GetUserByID(Guid userID) {
var query = "SELECT * FROM USERS WHERE ID = {userID}";
var dbResult = db.ExecuteQuery(query);
return CreateUserFromDBResult(dbResult);
}
public User CreateUserFromDBResult(DbResult result) {
// parse and return User
}
}
public class UserService_v2 {
public void SomeOperation(Guid userID) {
var user = UserRepository.getByID(userID);
// do something with the user
}
}
Let's take a look at these two implementations.
UserService_v1 and UserService_v2 do exactly the same thing but different ways. From the point of view of the System, these services adhere to the SRP as they contain operations related to Users.
Now let's take a look at what they actually do to complete their work.
UserService_v1 does these things:
Builds a SQL query string.
Calls the db to execute the query
Takes the specific DbResult and creates a User from it.
Does the operation on the User
UserService_v2 does these things:
1. Requests from the repository the User by ID
2. Does the operation on the User
UserService_v1 contains:
How specific query is build
How the specific DbResult is mapped to a User
When this query need to be called (in the begging of the operation in this case)
UserService_v1 contains:
When a User should be retrieved from the DB
UserRepository contains:
How specific query is build
How the specific DbResult is mapped to a User
What we do here is to move the responsibility of How from the Service to the Repository. This way each class has one reason to change. If how changes, we change the Repository. If when changes, we change the Service.
This way we create objects that collaborate with each other to do specific work, by dividing responsibilities. The tricky parts is: what responsibilities we divide?
If we have a UserService and OrderService we don't divide when and how here. We divide what so we can have one service per Entity in our system.
It's natural for there services to need other objects to do their work. We can of course add all of the responsibilities of what, when and how to a single object but that just makes to the messy, unreadable and hard to change.
In this regard the SRP helps us to achieve cleaner code by having more smaller parts that collaborate with and use each other.
Let's take a look at your specific case.
If you can move the responsibility of how the ClientRequest is created and signed by moving it to the ThirdPartyClient, your SendRequestToThirdPartySystemService will only tell when this request should be sent. This will remove Marshaller, and CryptoService as dependencies from your SendRequestToThirdPartySystemService.
Also you have SerializationUtils that you probably rename to Serializer to capture the intent better as Utils is something that we stick to objects that we just don't know how to name and contains a lot of logic (and probably multiple responsibilities).
This will reduce the number of dependencies and your tests will have less things to mock.
Here's a version of the sendRequest method with less responsibilities.
#Override
public void sendRequest() {
try {
// params are not clear as you don't show them to your code
ThirdPartyResponse response = thirdPartyClient.sendRequest(param1, param2);
byte[] serializedMessage = SerializationUtils.serialize(response);
eventBus.sendToQueue(topicName, serialize);
} catch (Exception e) {
log.error("Send request was filed with exception: {}", e.getMessage());
}
}
From your code I'm not sure if you can also move the responsibility of serialization and deserialization to the EventBus, but if you can do that, it will remove Seriazaliation from your service also. This will make the EventBus responsible for how it serialized and stores the things inside it making it more cohesive. Other objects that collaborate with it will just tell it to send and object to the queue not caring how this objects get's there.

Creating JsonLd + Hydra based Generic Client API in java. Is there any projects exist for reference?

I am creating Client API in Java using :+ Apache Jena FrameWork+ Hydra(for Hypermedia driven) + my private vocab similar to Markus Lanther Event-API Vocab instead of schema.org(for Ontology/Vocabulary part)
Section 1 :
After looking this Markus Lanther EventDemo repo and hydra-java.I found that they are creating classes for each hydra:Class that can break client in future .For example :
A Person class (Person.java)
public class Person
{
String name;
};
But in future requirement name is also a class eg:
public class Name
{
String firstName;
String LastName;
};
So to fulfill this requirement I have to update Person class like this:
public class Person
{
Name name;
};
Question 1:
Is my understanding correct or not of this Section? If yes then what is the way to deal with this part ?
Section 2:
To avoid above problem I created a GenericResource class(GenericResource.java)
public class GenericResource
{
private Model model;
public void addProperty(String propertyName,Object propertyValue)
{
propertyName = "myvocab:"+propertyName;
//Because he will pass propertyName only eg: "name" and I will map it to "myvocab:name"
//Some logic to add propertyName and propertyValue to model
}
public GenericResource retriveProperty(String propertyName)
{
propertyName = "myvocab:"+propertyName;
//Some logic to query and retrieve propertyName data from this Object add it to new GenericResource Object and return
}
public GenericResouce performAction(String actionName,String postData)
{
//Some logic to make http call give response in return
}
}
But again I stuck in lots of problem :
Problem 1: It is not necessary that every propertyName is mapped to myvocab:propertyName. Some may be mapped to some other vocab eg: hydra:propertyName, schema:propertyName, rdfs:propertyName, newVocab:propertyName, etc.
Problem 2: How to validate whether this propertyName belongs to this class ?
Suggestion: Put type field/variable in GenericResource class.And then check supportedProperty in vocab corresponding to that class.To more clarity assume above Person class which is also defined in vocab and having supportedProperty : [name,age,etc] .So my GenericResource have type "Person" and at time of addProperty or some other operation , I will query through vocab for that property is in supportedProperty list or in supportedOperation list in case of performAction().
Is it correct way ? Any other suggestion will be most welcomed?

Question 1: Is my understanding correct or not of this Section? If yes
then what is the way to deal with this part ?
Yes, that seems to be correct. Just because hydra-java decided to creates classes doesn't mean you have to do the same in your implementation though. I would rather write a mapper and annotate an internal class that can then stay stable (you need to update the mapping instead). Your GenericResource approach also looks good btw.
Problem 1: It is not necessary that every propertyName is mapped to
myvocab:propertyName. Some may be mapped to some other vocab eg:
hydra:propertyName, schema:propertyName, rdfs:propertyName,
newVocab:propertyName, etc.
Why don't you store and access the properties with full URLs, i.e., including the vocab? You can of course implement some convenience methods to simplify the work with your vocab.
Problem 2: How to validate whether this propertyName belongs to this
class
Suggestion: Put type field/variable in GenericResource class
JSON-LD's #type in node objects (not in #value objects) corresponds to rdf:type. So simply add it as every other property.
And then check supportedProperty in vocab corresponding to that class.
Please keep in mind that supportedProperty only tells you which properties are known to be supported. It doesn't tell you which aren't. In other words, it is valid to have properties other than the ones listed as supportedProperty on an object/resource.

Ad Q1:
For the flexibility you want, the client has to be prepared for semantic and structural changes.
In HTML that is possible. The server can change the structure of an html form in the way outlined by you, by having a firstName and lastName field rather than just a name field. The client does not break, rather it adjusts its UI, following the new semantics. The trick is that the UI is generated, not fixed.
A client which tries to unmarshal the incoming message into a fixed representation, such as a Java bean, is out of luck, and I do not think there is any solution how you could deserialize into a Java bean and survive a change like yours.
If you do not try to deserialize, but stick to reading and processing the incoming message into a more flexible representation, then you can achieve the kind of evolvability you're after. The client must be able to handle the flexible representation accordingly. It could generate UIs rather than binding data to fixed markup, which means, it makes no assumptions about the semantics and structure of the data. If the client absolutely has to know what a data element means, then the server cannot change the related semantics, it can only add new items with the new semantics while keeping the old ones around.
If there were a way how a server could hand out a new structure with a code-on-demand adapter for existing clients, then the server would gain a lot of evolvability. But I am not aware of any such solutions yet.
Ad Q2:
If your goal is to read an incoming json-ld response into a Jena Model on the client side, please see https://jena.apache.org/documentation/io/rdf-input.html
Model model = ModelFactory.createDefaultModel() ;
String base = null;
model.read(inputStream, base, "JSON-LD");
Thus your client will not break in the sense that it cannot read the incoming response. I think that is what your GenericResource achieves, too. But you could use Jena directly on the client side. Basically, you would avoid unmarshalling into a fixed type.

An easy way to initialize all objects in a java class

I am trying to generate documentation for existing services. Its a bunch of rest services. What I would like to do is to simply create a new tag in xdoclet, that new tag will have a parameter. something like
#JSONInputMessage("com.foo.bar.input")
#JSONOutputMessage("com.foo.bar.output")
the xdoclet will then go to that class, initialize it, dump it into Jackson to convert it to json, and then copy the resulting json into the javadoc.
All of this is simple enough. My problem is i need a way to take in an object, then walk the fields all the way down, initializing the objects so they actually show up in the json dump. Does anyone have an easy way to reflect thru an object and initialize all objects?

Podam initializes a java object tree with random data, but you may define a strategy or use attributes to decide the values that are set.
Simple example:
PodamFactory factory = new PodamFactoryImpl(); //This will use the default Random Data Provider Strategy
Pojo myPojo = factory.manufacturePojo(Pojo.class);
Or with a strategy:
DataProviderStrategy strategy = new MyDataProviderStrategy();
PodamFactory factory = new PodamFactoryImpl(strategy);
Pojo myPojo = factory.manufacturePojo(Pojo.class);
Or with attributes:
#PodamStrategyValue(PostCodeStrategy.class)
private String postCode;
and then you define the strategy class for that single attribute:
public class PostCodeStrategy implements AttributeStrategy<String> {
public String getValue() throws PodamMockeryException {
...
}
}
Would this work for you?

Patterns: Populate instance from Parameters and export it to XML

I'm building a simple RESTFul Service; and for achieve that I need two tasks:
Get an instance of my resource (i.e Book) from request parameters, so I can get that instance to be persisted
Build an XML document from that instance to send the representation to the clients
Right now, I'm doing both things in my POJO class:
public class Book implements Serializable {
private Long id;
public Book(Form form) {
//Initializing attributes
id = Long.parseLong(form.getFirstValue(Book.CODE_ELEMENT));
}
public Element toXml(Document document) {
// Getting an XML Representation of the Book
Element bookElement = document.createElement(BOOK_ELEMENT);
}
I've remembered an OO principle that said that behavior should be where the data is, but now my POJO depends from Request and XML API's and that doesn't feels right (also, that class has persistence anotations)
Is there any standard approach/pattern to solve that issue?
EDIT:
The libraries i'm using are Restlets and Objectify.

I agree with you when you say that the behavior should be where the data is. But at the same time, as you say I just don't feel confortable polluting a POJO interface with specific methods used for serialization means (which can grow considerably depending on the way you want to do it - JSON, XML, etc.).
1) Build an XML document from that instance to send the representation to the clients
In order to decouple the object from serialization logic, I would adopt the Strategy Pattern:
interface BookSerializerStrategy {
String serialize(Book book);
}
public class XmlBookSerializerStrategy implements BookSerializerStrategy {
public String serialize(Book book) {
// Do something to serialize your book.
}
}
public class JsonBookSerializerStrategy implements BookSerializerStrategy {
public String serialize(Book book) {
// Do something to serialize your book.
}
}
You POJO interface would become:
public class Book implements Serializable {
private Long id;
private BookSerializerStrategy serializer
public String serialize() {
return serializer.serialize(this);
}
public void setSerializer(BookSerializerStrategy serializer) {
this.serializer = serializer;
}
}
Using this approach you will be able to isolate the serialization logic in just one place and wouldn't pollute your POJO with that. Additionally, returning a String I won't need to couple you POJO with classes Document and Element.
2) Get an instance of my resource (i.e Book) from request parameters, so I can get that instance to be persisted
To find a pattern to handle the deserialization is more complex in my opinion. I really don't see a better way than to create a Factory with static methods in order to remove this logic from your POJO.
Another approach to answer your two questions would be something like JAXB uses: two different objects, an Unmarshaller in charge of deserialization and a Marshaller for serialization. Since Java 1.6, JAXB comes by default with JDK.
Finally, those are just suggestions. I've become really interested in your question actually and curious about other possible solutions.

Are you using Spring, or any other framework, in your project? If you used Spring, it would take care of serialization for you, as well as assigning request params to method params (parsing as needed).