Related
According to the Hibernate docs, MappedSuperclass allows mapping inheritance, where the super class is not treated as an entity, and where polymorphic queries that fetch objects by the base class are not supported.
On the other hand, the table per class strategy is similar in terms of the generated schema in the DB, except that it maps the super class to a table if it is not an abstract. However it supports polymorphic queries.
My question is: why would anyone use the #MappedSuperclass strategy? Is there a performance issue implied if the parent class is treated as an entity? Any ideas around this is appreciated.
#MappedSuperclass
By default, properties of the superclass are ignored and not persistent!
You have to annotate the superclass with #MappedSuperclass to enable embedding of its properties in the concrete subclass tables.
You can override column mappings from the superclass in a subclass with the #AttributeOverride annotation or several with #AttributeOverrides.
You could declare the identifier property in the superclass, with a shared column name and generator strategy for all subclasses, so you wouldn’t have to repeat it. But it’s optional!
The main problem with implicit inheritance mapping is that it doesn’t support polymorphic associations very well. In the database, you usually represent associations as foreign key relationships. If the subclasses are all mapped to different tables, a polymorphic association to their superclass can’t be represented as a simple foreign key relationship.
Polymorphic queries that return instances of all classes that match the interface of the queried class are also problematic. Hibernate must execute a query against the superclass as several SQL SELECTs, one for each concrete subclass.
A further conceptual problem with this mapping strategy is that several different columns, of different tables, share exactly the same semantics. This makes schema evolution more complex. For example, renaming or changing the type of a superclass property results in changes to multiple columns in multiple tables. Many of the standard refactoring operations offered by your IDE would require manual adjustments, because the automatic procedures usually don’t account for things like #AttributeOverrides. It also makes it much more difficult to implement database integrity constraints that apply to all subclasses.
So, this approach is a good chose for the top level of your class hierarchy,
where polymorphism isn’t usually required, and when modification of the superclass
in the future is unlikely.
#Inheritance(strategy = InheritanceType.TABLE_PER_CLASS)
The database identifier and its mapping have to be present in the superclass, to share it in all subclasses and their tables. This is no longer optional, as it was for the #MappedSuperclass mapping strategy.
Note that the JPA standard specifies that TABLE_PER_CLASS is optional, so not all JPA implementations may support it. The implementation is also vendor dependent — in Hibernate, it’s equivalent to a <union-subclass> mapping in the old native Hibernate XML metadata.
The advantages of this mapping strategy are clearer if we examine polymorphic queries. The tables are combined with a UNION operator, and a literal is inserted into the intermediate result; Hibernate reads this to instantiate the correct class given the data from a particular row. A union requires that the queries that are combined project over the same columns; hence, you have to pad and fill nonexistent columns with NULL. You may ask whether this query will really perform better than two separate statements. Here you can let the database optimizer find the best execution plan to combine rows from several tables, instead of merging two result sets in memory as Hibernate’s polymorphic loader engine would do.
Another much more important advantage is the ability to handle polymorphic associations. Hibernate can use a UNION query to simulate a single table as the target of the association mapping.
So, this approach is a good chose when you need to use polymorphic queries and associations.
P.S. This is almost verbatim quotation from the excellent book: Java Persistence with Hibernate (Bauer, King, Gregory)
meaning a class whose mapping information is applied to the entities that inherit it.
This question is somewhat related to Hibernate Annotation Placement Question.
But I want to know which is better? Access via properties or access via fields?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?
There are arguments for both, but most of them stem from certain user requirements "what if you need to add logic for", or "xxxx breaks encapsulation". However, nobody has really commented on the theory, and given a properly reasoned argument.
What is Hibernate/JPA actually doing when it persists an object - well, it is persisting the STATE of the object. That means storing it in a way that it can be easily reproduced.
What is encapsulation? Encapsulations means encapsulating the data (or state) with an interface that the application/client can use to access the data safely - keeping it consistent and valid.
Think of this like MS Word. MS Word maintains a model of the document in memory - the documents STATE. It presents an interface that the user can use to modify the document - a set of buttons, tools, keyboard commands etc. However, when you choose to persist (Save) that document, it saves the internal state, not the set of keypresses and mouse clicks used to generate it.
Saving the internal state of the object DOES NOT break encapsulation - otherwise you don't really understand what encapsulation means, and why it exists. It is just like object serialisation really.
For this reason, IN MOST CASES, it is appropriate to persist the FIELDS and not the ACCESSORS. This means that an object can be accurately recreated from the database exactly the way it was stored. It should not need any validation, because this was done on the original when it was created, and before it was stored in the database (unless, God forbid, you are storing invalid data in the DB!!!!). Likewise, there should be no need to calculate values, as they were already calculated before the object was stored. The object should look just the way it did before it was saved. In fact, by adding additional stuff into the getters/setters you are actually increasing the risk that you will recreate something that is not an exact copy of the original.
Of course, this functionality was added for a reason. There may be some valid use cases for persisting the accessors, however, they will typically be rare. An example may be that you want to avoid persisting a calculated value, though you may want to ask the question why you don't calculate it on demand in the value's getter, or lazily initialise it in the getter. Personally I cannot think of any good use case, and none of the answers here really give a "Software Engineering" answer.
I prefer field access, because that way I'm not forced to provide getter/setter for each property.
A quick survey via Google suggests that field access is the majority (e.g., http://java.dzone.com/tips/12-feb-jpa-20-why-accesstype).
I believe field access is the idiom recommended by Spring, but I can't find a reference to back that up.
There's a related SO question that tried to measure performance and came to the conclusion that there's "no difference".
Here's a situation where you HAVE to use property accessors. Imagine you have a GENERIC abstract class with lots of implementation goodness to inherit into 8 concrete subclasses:
public abstract class Foo<T extends Bar> {
T oneThing;
T anotherThing;
// getters and setters ommited for brevity
// Lots and lots of implementation regarding oneThing and anotherThing here
}
Now exactly how should you annotate this class? The answer is YOU CAN'T annotate it at all with either field or property access because you can't specify the target entity at this point. You HAVE to annotate the concrete implementations. But since the persisted properties are declared in this superclass, you MUST used property access in the subclasses.
Field access is not an option in an application with abstract generic super-classes.
I tend to prefer and to use property accessors:
I can add logic if the need arises (as mentioned in the accepted answer).
it allows me to call foo.getId() without initializing a proxy (important when using Hibernate, until HHH-3718 get resolved).
Drawback:
it makes the code less readable, you have for example to browse a whole class to see if there are #Transient around there.
I prefer accessors, since I can add some business logic to my accessors whenever I need.
Here's an example:
#Entity
public class Person {
#Column("nickName")
public String getNickName(){
if(this.name != null) return generateFunnyNick(this.name);
else return "John Doe";
}
}
Besides, if you throw another libs into the mix (like some JSON-converting lib or BeanMapper or Dozer or other bean mapping/cloning lib based on getter/setter properties) you'll have the guarantee that the lib is in sync with the persistence manager (both use the getter/setter).
Let me try to summarize the most important reasons for choosing field-based access. If you want to dive deeper, please read this article on my blog: Access Strategies in JPA and Hibernate – Which is better, field or property access?
Field-based access is by far the better option. Here are 5 reasons for it:
Reason 1: Better readability of your code
If you use field-based access, you annotate your entity attributes with your mapping annotations. By placing the definition of all entity attributes at the top of your class, you get a relatively compact view of all attributes and their mappings.
Reason 2: Omit getter or setter methods that shouldn’t be called by your application
Another advantage of field-based access is that your persistence provider, e.g., Hibernate or EclipseLink, doesn’t use the getter and setter methods of your entity attributes. That means that you don’t need to provide any method that shouldn’t be used by your business code. This is most often the case for setter methods of generated primary key attributes or version columns. Your persistence provider manages the values of these attributes, and you should not set them programmatically.
Reason 3: Flexible implementation of getter and setter methods
Because your persistence provider doesn’t call the getter and setter methods, they are not forced to fulfill any external requirements. You can implement these methods in any way you want. That enables you to implement business-specific validation rules, to trigger additional business logic or to convert the entity attribute into a different data type.
You can, for example, use that to wrap an optional association or attribute into a Java Optional.
Reason 4: No need to mark utility methods as #Transient
Another benefit of the field-based access strategy is that you don’t need to annotate your utility methods with #Transient. This annotation tells your persistence provider that a method or attribute is not part of the entity persistent state. And because with field-type access the persistent state gets defined by the attributes of your entity, your JPA implementation ignores all methods of your entity.
Reason 5: Avoid bugs when working with proxies
Hibernate uses proxies for lazily fetched to-one associations so that it can control the initialization of these associations. That approach works fine in almost all situations. But it introduces a dangerous pitfall if you use property-based access.
If you use property-based access, Hibernate initializes the attributes of the proxy object when you call the getter method. That’s always the case if you use the proxy object in your business code. But quite a lot of equals and hashCode implementations access the attributes directly. If this is the first time you access any of the proxy attributes, these attributes are still uninitialized.
I prefer using field access for the following reasons:
The property access can lead to very nasty bugs when implementing equals/hashCode and referencing fields directly (as opposed through their getters). This is because the proxy is only initialized when the getters are accessed, and a direct-field access would simply return null.
The property access requires you to annotate all utility methods (e.g. addChild/removeChild) as #Transient.
With field access we can hide the #Version field by not exposing a getter at all. A getter can also lead to adding a setter as well, and the version field should never be set manually (which can lead to very nasty issues). All version incrementation should be triggered through OPTIMISTIC_FORCE_INCREMENT or PESSIMISTIC_FORCE_INCREMENT explicit locking.
That really depends on a specific case -- both options are available for a reason. IMO it boils down to three cases:
setter has some logic that should not be executed at the time of loading an instance from a database; for example, some value validation happens in the setter, however the data coming from db should be valid (otherwise it would not get there (: ); in this case field access is most appropriate;
setter has some logic that should always be invoked, even during loading of an instance from db; for example, the property being initialised is used in computation of some calculated field (e.g. property -- a monetary amount, calculated property -- a total of several monetary properties of the same instance); in this case property access is required.
None of the above cases -- then both options are applicable, just stay consistent (e.i. if field access is the choice in this situation then use it all the time in similar situation).
I would strongly recommend field access and NOT annotations on the getters (property access) if you want to do anything more in the setters than just setting the value (e.g. Encryption or calculation).
The problem with the property access is that the setters are also called when the object is loaded. This has worked for me fine for many month until we wanted to introduce encryption. In our use case we wanted to encrypt a field in the setter and decrypt it in the getter.
The problem now with property access was that when Hibernate loaded the object it was also calling the setter to populate the field and thus was encrypting the encrypted value again.
This post also mentions this:
Java Hibernate: Different property set function behavior depending on who is calling it
This has cause me headaches until I remembered the difference between field access and property access. Now I have moved all my annotations from property access to field access and it works fine now.
I think annotating the property is better because updating fields directly breaks encapsulation, even when your ORM does it.
Here's a great example of where it will burn you: you probably want your annotations for hibernate validator & persistence in the same place (either fields or properties). If you want to test your hibernate validator powered validations which are annotated on a field, you can't use a mock of your entity to isolate your unit test to just the validator. Ouch.
I believe property access vs. field access is subtly different with regards to lazy initialisation.
Consider the following mappings for 2 basic beans:
<hibernate-mapping package="org.nkl.model" default-access="field">
<class name="FieldBean" table="FIELD_BEAN">
<id name="id">
<generator class="sequence" />
</id>
<property name="message" />
</class>
</hibernate-mapping>
<hibernate-mapping package="org.nkl.model" default-access="property">
<class name="PropBean" table="PROP_BEAN">
<id name="id">
<generator class="sequence" />
</id>
<property name="message" />
</class>
</hibernate-mapping>
And the following unit tests:
#Test
public void testFieldBean() {
Session session = sessionFactory.openSession();
Transaction tx = session.beginTransaction();
FieldBean fb = new FieldBean("field");
Long id = (Long) session.save(fb);
tx.commit();
session.close();
session = sessionFactory.openSession();
tx = session.beginTransaction();
fb = (FieldBean) session.load(FieldBean.class, id);
System.out.println(fb.getId());
tx.commit();
session.close();
}
#Test
public void testPropBean() {
Session session = sessionFactory.openSession();
Transaction tx = session.beginTransaction();
PropBean pb = new PropBean("prop");
Long id = (Long) session.save(pb);
tx.commit();
session.close();
session = sessionFactory.openSession();
tx = session.beginTransaction();
pb = (PropBean) session.load(PropBean.class, id);
System.out.println(pb.getId());
tx.commit();
session.close();
}
You will see the subtle difference in the selects required:
Hibernate:
call next value for hibernate_sequence
Hibernate:
insert
into
FIELD_BEAN
(message, id)
values
(?, ?)
Hibernate:
select
fieldbean0_.id as id1_0_,
fieldbean0_.message as message1_0_
from
FIELD_BEAN fieldbean0_
where
fieldbean0_.id=?
0
Hibernate:
call next value for hibernate_sequence
Hibernate:
insert
into
PROP_BEAN
(message, id)
values
(?, ?)
1
That is, calling fb.getId() requires a select, whereas pb.getId() does not.
By default, JPA providers access the values of entity fields and map those fields to database columns
using the entity’s JavaBean property accessor (getter) and mutator (setter) methods. As such, the
names and types of the private fields in an entity do not matter to JPA. Instead, JPA looks at only
the names and return types of the JavaBean property accessors. You can alter this using the #javax.persistence.Access annotation, which enables you to explicitly specify the access methodology
that the JPA provider should employ.
#Entity
#Access(AccessType.FIELD)
public class SomeEntity implements Serializable
{
...
}
The available options for the AccessType enum are PROPERTY (the default) and FIELD. With
PROPERTY, the provider gets and sets field values using the JavaBean property methods. FIELD makes
the provider get and set field values using the instance fields. As a best practice, you should just stick
to the default and use JavaBean properties unless you have a compelling reason to do otherwise.
You
can put these property annotations on either the private fields or the public accessor methods. If
you use AccessType.PROPERTY (default) and annotate the private fields instead of the JavaBean
accessors, the field names must match the JavaBean property names. However, the names do not
have to match if you annotate the JavaBean accessors. Likewise, if you use AccessType.FIELD and
annotate the JavaBean accessors instead of the fields, the field names must also match the JavaBean
property names. In this case, they do not have to match if you annotate the fields. It’s best to just
be consistent and annotate the JavaBean accessors for AccessType.PROPERTY and the fields for
AccessType.FIELD.
It is important that you should never mix JPA property annotations and JPA field annotations
in the same entity. Doing so results in unspecified behavior and is very
likely to cause errors.
Are we there yet
That's an old presentation but Rod suggests that annotation on property access encourages anemic domain models and should not be the "default" way to annotate.
Another point in favor of field access is that otherwise you are forced to expose setters for collections as well what, for me, is a bad idea as changing the persistent collection instance to an object not managed by Hibernate will definitely break your data consistency.
So I prefer having collections as protected fields initialized to empty implementations in the default constructor and expose only their getters. Then, only managed operations like clear(), remove(), removeAll() etc are possible that will never make Hibernate unaware of changes.
I prefer fields, but I've run into one situation that seems to force me to place the annotations on getters.
With the Hibernate JPA implementation, #Embedded doesn't seem to work on fields. So that has to go on the getter. And once you put that on the getter, then the various #Column annotations have to go on the getters too. (I think Hibernate doesn't want mixing fields and getters here.) And once you're putting #Column on getters in one class, it probably makes sense to do that throughout.
I favor field accessors. The code is much cleaner. All the annotations can be placed in one
section of a class and the code is much easier to read.
I found another problem with property accessors: if you have getXYZ methods on your class that are NOT annotated as being associated with persistent properties, hibernate generates sql to attempt to get those properties, resulting in some very confusing error messages. Two hours wasted. I did not write this code; I have always used field accessors in the past and have never run into this issue.
Hibernate versions used in this app:
<!-- hibernate -->
<hibernate-core.version>3.3.2.GA</hibernate-core.version>
<hibernate-annotations.version>3.4.0.GA</hibernate-annotations.version>
<hibernate-commons-annotations.version>3.1.0.GA</hibernate-commons-annotations.version>
<hibernate-entitymanager.version>3.4.0.GA</hibernate-entitymanager.version>
You should choose access via fields over access via properties.
With fields you can limit the data sent and received.
With via properties you can send more data as a host, and
set G denominations (which factory set most of the properties in total).
Normally beans are POJO, so they have accessors anyway.
So the question is not "which one is better?", but simply "when to use field access?". And the answer is "when you don't need a setter/getter for the field!".
I had the same question regarding accesstype in hibernate and found some answers here.
I have solved lazy initialisation and field access here Hibernate one-to-one: getId() without fetching entire object
We created entity beans and used getter annotations. The problem we ran into is this: some entities have complex rules for some properties regarding when they can be updated. The solution was to have some business logic in each setter that determines whether or not the actual value changed and, if so, whether the change should be allowed. Of course, Hibernate can always set the properties, so we ended up with two groups of setters. Pretty ugly.
Reading previous posts, I also see that referencing the properties from inside the entity could lead to issues with collections not loading.
Bottom line, I would lean toward annotating the fields in the future.
i thinking about this and i choose method accesor
why?
because field and methos accesor is the same
but if later i need some logic in load field, i save move all annotation placed in fields
regards
Grubhart
To make your classes cleaner, put the annotation in the field then use #Access(AccessType.PROPERTY)
Both :
The EJB3 spec requires that you declare annotations on the element
type that will be accessed, i.e. the getter method if you use property
access, the field if you use field access.
https://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/annotations/3.5/reference/en/html_single/#entity-mapping
AccessType.PROPERTY: The EJB persistence implementation will load state into your class via JavaBean "setter" methods, and retrieve state from your class using JavaBean "getter" methods. This is the default.
AccessType.FIELD: State is loaded and retrieved directly from your class' fields. You do not have to write JavaBean "getters" and "setters".
We recently joined up to an existing project and in several entity classes we have seen the following code example:
#OneToMany(mappedBy = "department")
private List<Employee> employee= new LinkedList<>();
I had a discussion with a developer about using ArrayList instead of LinkedList for hibernate. But the arguments from both sides were not clear enough.
Usually, i use for many purposes an ArrayList. Here is a good comparison
Does hibernate under the hood work better with that?
Is there a reason why linkedList is used?
Or has it simply been used unknowingly in the project?
The actual implementation used when an entity is loaded from the database is not the same as the default value in the class definition. This is why entity properties which are collections must be specified as an interface type.
Hibernate uses its own collection implementations which are enriched with lazy-loading, caching or state change detection semantics. For this reason, persistent collections must be declared as an interface type.
From https://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/orm/5.4/userguide/html_single/Hibernate_User_Guide.html#collections
If your entity is not loaded from the database then you should specify a default implementation that make sense for the use case, but being aware it'll not be the same implementation when the entity is loaded. Generally, this means just using ArrayList in most situations.
One of my goals is to create an engine that will set values in pojo object from JPA objects dynamically using reflection. One of the matching criteria is, that the field names should match.
I was successfully able to implement this for two pojo objects. But when I tried using JPA objects as one of the object parameter, it didn't work. Based on my research I found out that the method Class.getDeclaredFields() , does not give me the name of the field but the getter/setter method name of member variable for JPA objects.
Can anyone please give me a lead or direction as in where/what should I look to accomplish this task?
JPA providers will often use dynamic proxy classes of your concrete JPA classes, so you have no guarantee of the field names in the proxy. The only guarantee about a proxy is that the methods are the same. Use a debugger to inspect the runtime class of the JPA class instances that you're trying to use and you'll see the problem.
The best you'll be able to do is use reflection to call methods on JPA-returned objects.
All that aside, I don't really see why you'd need to POJO-ify an entity class anyway, since an entity is primarily an annotated... POJO.
One of the matching criteria is, that the field names should match.
I think that this is the root of your problem. There is simply no guarantee that a Java object's field names will match the names of getters and setters ... or anything else. If you make this assumption, you will run into cases where is doesn't work.
The best solution is to simply not use this approach. Make it a requirement that the Pojo classes conform to the JavaBeans spec and rely on the setters to set the properties. This is likely to work more often than making assumptions about (private) field names.
In fact, the state of a generic JPA object implemented using a dynamic proxies could well be held in a hash map. Those fields you can see could simply be constants used for something else.
This question is somewhat related to Hibernate Annotation Placement Question.
But I want to know which is better? Access via properties or access via fields?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?
There are arguments for both, but most of them stem from certain user requirements "what if you need to add logic for", or "xxxx breaks encapsulation". However, nobody has really commented on the theory, and given a properly reasoned argument.
What is Hibernate/JPA actually doing when it persists an object - well, it is persisting the STATE of the object. That means storing it in a way that it can be easily reproduced.
What is encapsulation? Encapsulations means encapsulating the data (or state) with an interface that the application/client can use to access the data safely - keeping it consistent and valid.
Think of this like MS Word. MS Word maintains a model of the document in memory - the documents STATE. It presents an interface that the user can use to modify the document - a set of buttons, tools, keyboard commands etc. However, when you choose to persist (Save) that document, it saves the internal state, not the set of keypresses and mouse clicks used to generate it.
Saving the internal state of the object DOES NOT break encapsulation - otherwise you don't really understand what encapsulation means, and why it exists. It is just like object serialisation really.
For this reason, IN MOST CASES, it is appropriate to persist the FIELDS and not the ACCESSORS. This means that an object can be accurately recreated from the database exactly the way it was stored. It should not need any validation, because this was done on the original when it was created, and before it was stored in the database (unless, God forbid, you are storing invalid data in the DB!!!!). Likewise, there should be no need to calculate values, as they were already calculated before the object was stored. The object should look just the way it did before it was saved. In fact, by adding additional stuff into the getters/setters you are actually increasing the risk that you will recreate something that is not an exact copy of the original.
Of course, this functionality was added for a reason. There may be some valid use cases for persisting the accessors, however, they will typically be rare. An example may be that you want to avoid persisting a calculated value, though you may want to ask the question why you don't calculate it on demand in the value's getter, or lazily initialise it in the getter. Personally I cannot think of any good use case, and none of the answers here really give a "Software Engineering" answer.
I prefer field access, because that way I'm not forced to provide getter/setter for each property.
A quick survey via Google suggests that field access is the majority (e.g., http://java.dzone.com/tips/12-feb-jpa-20-why-accesstype).
I believe field access is the idiom recommended by Spring, but I can't find a reference to back that up.
There's a related SO question that tried to measure performance and came to the conclusion that there's "no difference".
Here's a situation where you HAVE to use property accessors. Imagine you have a GENERIC abstract class with lots of implementation goodness to inherit into 8 concrete subclasses:
public abstract class Foo<T extends Bar> {
T oneThing;
T anotherThing;
// getters and setters ommited for brevity
// Lots and lots of implementation regarding oneThing and anotherThing here
}
Now exactly how should you annotate this class? The answer is YOU CAN'T annotate it at all with either field or property access because you can't specify the target entity at this point. You HAVE to annotate the concrete implementations. But since the persisted properties are declared in this superclass, you MUST used property access in the subclasses.
Field access is not an option in an application with abstract generic super-classes.
I tend to prefer and to use property accessors:
I can add logic if the need arises (as mentioned in the accepted answer).
it allows me to call foo.getId() without initializing a proxy (important when using Hibernate, until HHH-3718 get resolved).
Drawback:
it makes the code less readable, you have for example to browse a whole class to see if there are #Transient around there.
I prefer accessors, since I can add some business logic to my accessors whenever I need.
Here's an example:
#Entity
public class Person {
#Column("nickName")
public String getNickName(){
if(this.name != null) return generateFunnyNick(this.name);
else return "John Doe";
}
}
Besides, if you throw another libs into the mix (like some JSON-converting lib or BeanMapper or Dozer or other bean mapping/cloning lib based on getter/setter properties) you'll have the guarantee that the lib is in sync with the persistence manager (both use the getter/setter).
Let me try to summarize the most important reasons for choosing field-based access. If you want to dive deeper, please read this article on my blog: Access Strategies in JPA and Hibernate – Which is better, field or property access?
Field-based access is by far the better option. Here are 5 reasons for it:
Reason 1: Better readability of your code
If you use field-based access, you annotate your entity attributes with your mapping annotations. By placing the definition of all entity attributes at the top of your class, you get a relatively compact view of all attributes and their mappings.
Reason 2: Omit getter or setter methods that shouldn’t be called by your application
Another advantage of field-based access is that your persistence provider, e.g., Hibernate or EclipseLink, doesn’t use the getter and setter methods of your entity attributes. That means that you don’t need to provide any method that shouldn’t be used by your business code. This is most often the case for setter methods of generated primary key attributes or version columns. Your persistence provider manages the values of these attributes, and you should not set them programmatically.
Reason 3: Flexible implementation of getter and setter methods
Because your persistence provider doesn’t call the getter and setter methods, they are not forced to fulfill any external requirements. You can implement these methods in any way you want. That enables you to implement business-specific validation rules, to trigger additional business logic or to convert the entity attribute into a different data type.
You can, for example, use that to wrap an optional association or attribute into a Java Optional.
Reason 4: No need to mark utility methods as #Transient
Another benefit of the field-based access strategy is that you don’t need to annotate your utility methods with #Transient. This annotation tells your persistence provider that a method or attribute is not part of the entity persistent state. And because with field-type access the persistent state gets defined by the attributes of your entity, your JPA implementation ignores all methods of your entity.
Reason 5: Avoid bugs when working with proxies
Hibernate uses proxies for lazily fetched to-one associations so that it can control the initialization of these associations. That approach works fine in almost all situations. But it introduces a dangerous pitfall if you use property-based access.
If you use property-based access, Hibernate initializes the attributes of the proxy object when you call the getter method. That’s always the case if you use the proxy object in your business code. But quite a lot of equals and hashCode implementations access the attributes directly. If this is the first time you access any of the proxy attributes, these attributes are still uninitialized.
I prefer using field access for the following reasons:
The property access can lead to very nasty bugs when implementing equals/hashCode and referencing fields directly (as opposed through their getters). This is because the proxy is only initialized when the getters are accessed, and a direct-field access would simply return null.
The property access requires you to annotate all utility methods (e.g. addChild/removeChild) as #Transient.
With field access we can hide the #Version field by not exposing a getter at all. A getter can also lead to adding a setter as well, and the version field should never be set manually (which can lead to very nasty issues). All version incrementation should be triggered through OPTIMISTIC_FORCE_INCREMENT or PESSIMISTIC_FORCE_INCREMENT explicit locking.
That really depends on a specific case -- both options are available for a reason. IMO it boils down to three cases:
setter has some logic that should not be executed at the time of loading an instance from a database; for example, some value validation happens in the setter, however the data coming from db should be valid (otherwise it would not get there (: ); in this case field access is most appropriate;
setter has some logic that should always be invoked, even during loading of an instance from db; for example, the property being initialised is used in computation of some calculated field (e.g. property -- a monetary amount, calculated property -- a total of several monetary properties of the same instance); in this case property access is required.
None of the above cases -- then both options are applicable, just stay consistent (e.i. if field access is the choice in this situation then use it all the time in similar situation).
I would strongly recommend field access and NOT annotations on the getters (property access) if you want to do anything more in the setters than just setting the value (e.g. Encryption or calculation).
The problem with the property access is that the setters are also called when the object is loaded. This has worked for me fine for many month until we wanted to introduce encryption. In our use case we wanted to encrypt a field in the setter and decrypt it in the getter.
The problem now with property access was that when Hibernate loaded the object it was also calling the setter to populate the field and thus was encrypting the encrypted value again.
This post also mentions this:
Java Hibernate: Different property set function behavior depending on who is calling it
This has cause me headaches until I remembered the difference between field access and property access. Now I have moved all my annotations from property access to field access and it works fine now.
I think annotating the property is better because updating fields directly breaks encapsulation, even when your ORM does it.
Here's a great example of where it will burn you: you probably want your annotations for hibernate validator & persistence in the same place (either fields or properties). If you want to test your hibernate validator powered validations which are annotated on a field, you can't use a mock of your entity to isolate your unit test to just the validator. Ouch.
I believe property access vs. field access is subtly different with regards to lazy initialisation.
Consider the following mappings for 2 basic beans:
<hibernate-mapping package="org.nkl.model" default-access="field">
<class name="FieldBean" table="FIELD_BEAN">
<id name="id">
<generator class="sequence" />
</id>
<property name="message" />
</class>
</hibernate-mapping>
<hibernate-mapping package="org.nkl.model" default-access="property">
<class name="PropBean" table="PROP_BEAN">
<id name="id">
<generator class="sequence" />
</id>
<property name="message" />
</class>
</hibernate-mapping>
And the following unit tests:
#Test
public void testFieldBean() {
Session session = sessionFactory.openSession();
Transaction tx = session.beginTransaction();
FieldBean fb = new FieldBean("field");
Long id = (Long) session.save(fb);
tx.commit();
session.close();
session = sessionFactory.openSession();
tx = session.beginTransaction();
fb = (FieldBean) session.load(FieldBean.class, id);
System.out.println(fb.getId());
tx.commit();
session.close();
}
#Test
public void testPropBean() {
Session session = sessionFactory.openSession();
Transaction tx = session.beginTransaction();
PropBean pb = new PropBean("prop");
Long id = (Long) session.save(pb);
tx.commit();
session.close();
session = sessionFactory.openSession();
tx = session.beginTransaction();
pb = (PropBean) session.load(PropBean.class, id);
System.out.println(pb.getId());
tx.commit();
session.close();
}
You will see the subtle difference in the selects required:
Hibernate:
call next value for hibernate_sequence
Hibernate:
insert
into
FIELD_BEAN
(message, id)
values
(?, ?)
Hibernate:
select
fieldbean0_.id as id1_0_,
fieldbean0_.message as message1_0_
from
FIELD_BEAN fieldbean0_
where
fieldbean0_.id=?
0
Hibernate:
call next value for hibernate_sequence
Hibernate:
insert
into
PROP_BEAN
(message, id)
values
(?, ?)
1
That is, calling fb.getId() requires a select, whereas pb.getId() does not.
By default, JPA providers access the values of entity fields and map those fields to database columns
using the entity’s JavaBean property accessor (getter) and mutator (setter) methods. As such, the
names and types of the private fields in an entity do not matter to JPA. Instead, JPA looks at only
the names and return types of the JavaBean property accessors. You can alter this using the #javax.persistence.Access annotation, which enables you to explicitly specify the access methodology
that the JPA provider should employ.
#Entity
#Access(AccessType.FIELD)
public class SomeEntity implements Serializable
{
...
}
The available options for the AccessType enum are PROPERTY (the default) and FIELD. With
PROPERTY, the provider gets and sets field values using the JavaBean property methods. FIELD makes
the provider get and set field values using the instance fields. As a best practice, you should just stick
to the default and use JavaBean properties unless you have a compelling reason to do otherwise.
You
can put these property annotations on either the private fields or the public accessor methods. If
you use AccessType.PROPERTY (default) and annotate the private fields instead of the JavaBean
accessors, the field names must match the JavaBean property names. However, the names do not
have to match if you annotate the JavaBean accessors. Likewise, if you use AccessType.FIELD and
annotate the JavaBean accessors instead of the fields, the field names must also match the JavaBean
property names. In this case, they do not have to match if you annotate the fields. It’s best to just
be consistent and annotate the JavaBean accessors for AccessType.PROPERTY and the fields for
AccessType.FIELD.
It is important that you should never mix JPA property annotations and JPA field annotations
in the same entity. Doing so results in unspecified behavior and is very
likely to cause errors.
Are we there yet
That's an old presentation but Rod suggests that annotation on property access encourages anemic domain models and should not be the "default" way to annotate.
Another point in favor of field access is that otherwise you are forced to expose setters for collections as well what, for me, is a bad idea as changing the persistent collection instance to an object not managed by Hibernate will definitely break your data consistency.
So I prefer having collections as protected fields initialized to empty implementations in the default constructor and expose only their getters. Then, only managed operations like clear(), remove(), removeAll() etc are possible that will never make Hibernate unaware of changes.
I prefer fields, but I've run into one situation that seems to force me to place the annotations on getters.
With the Hibernate JPA implementation, #Embedded doesn't seem to work on fields. So that has to go on the getter. And once you put that on the getter, then the various #Column annotations have to go on the getters too. (I think Hibernate doesn't want mixing fields and getters here.) And once you're putting #Column on getters in one class, it probably makes sense to do that throughout.
I favor field accessors. The code is much cleaner. All the annotations can be placed in one
section of a class and the code is much easier to read.
I found another problem with property accessors: if you have getXYZ methods on your class that are NOT annotated as being associated with persistent properties, hibernate generates sql to attempt to get those properties, resulting in some very confusing error messages. Two hours wasted. I did not write this code; I have always used field accessors in the past and have never run into this issue.
Hibernate versions used in this app:
<!-- hibernate -->
<hibernate-core.version>3.3.2.GA</hibernate-core.version>
<hibernate-annotations.version>3.4.0.GA</hibernate-annotations.version>
<hibernate-commons-annotations.version>3.1.0.GA</hibernate-commons-annotations.version>
<hibernate-entitymanager.version>3.4.0.GA</hibernate-entitymanager.version>
You should choose access via fields over access via properties.
With fields you can limit the data sent and received.
With via properties you can send more data as a host, and
set G denominations (which factory set most of the properties in total).
Normally beans are POJO, so they have accessors anyway.
So the question is not "which one is better?", but simply "when to use field access?". And the answer is "when you don't need a setter/getter for the field!".
I had the same question regarding accesstype in hibernate and found some answers here.
I have solved lazy initialisation and field access here Hibernate one-to-one: getId() without fetching entire object
We created entity beans and used getter annotations. The problem we ran into is this: some entities have complex rules for some properties regarding when they can be updated. The solution was to have some business logic in each setter that determines whether or not the actual value changed and, if so, whether the change should be allowed. Of course, Hibernate can always set the properties, so we ended up with two groups of setters. Pretty ugly.
Reading previous posts, I also see that referencing the properties from inside the entity could lead to issues with collections not loading.
Bottom line, I would lean toward annotating the fields in the future.
i thinking about this and i choose method accesor
why?
because field and methos accesor is the same
but if later i need some logic in load field, i save move all annotation placed in fields
regards
Grubhart
To make your classes cleaner, put the annotation in the field then use #Access(AccessType.PROPERTY)
Both :
The EJB3 spec requires that you declare annotations on the element
type that will be accessed, i.e. the getter method if you use property
access, the field if you use field access.
https://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/annotations/3.5/reference/en/html_single/#entity-mapping
AccessType.PROPERTY: The EJB persistence implementation will load state into your class via JavaBean "setter" methods, and retrieve state from your class using JavaBean "getter" methods. This is the default.
AccessType.FIELD: State is loaded and retrieved directly from your class' fields. You do not have to write JavaBean "getters" and "setters".