We Keep Coding

Inherit variables from abstract superclass

I'm trying to implement a BuilderPattern, where a subclass must extend a superclass.
Superclass:
#Getter
public abstract class CommonValidatorConfig<VC extends CommonValidatorConfig<VC>> {
private boolean canBeNull;
private boolean canBeEmpty;
public static abstract class CommonValidatorConfigBuilder<VC, VCB extends CommonValidatorConfigBuilder<VC, VCB>> {
protected boolean canBeNull;
protected boolean canBeEmpty;
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public VCB canBeNull(boolean canBeNull) {
this.canBeNull = canBeNull;
return (VCB) this;
}
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public VCB canBeEmpty(boolean canBeEmpty) {
this.canBeEmpty = canBeEmpty;
return (VCB) this;
}
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public VCB setDefault() {
this.canBeNull = false;
this.canBeEmpty = false;
return (VCB) this;
}
public abstract VC build();
}
}
Subclass:
#Builder
#AllArgsConstructor(access = AccessLevel.PRIVATE)
public class StringValidatorConfig extends CommonValidatorConfig<StringValidatorConfig> {
public static class StringValidatorConfigBuilder extends CommonValidatorConfigBuilder<StringValidatorConfig, StringValidatorConfigBuilder> {
#Override
public StringValidatorConfig build() {
return new StringValidatorConfig(false, false); // ERROR
}
}
}
The AllArgsConstructor AccessLevel is set to PRIVATE because I want to create a new instance using only Builders.
I was expecting an AllArgsConstructor for StringValidatorConfig with two variables (canBeNull and canBeEmpty), but the AllArgsConstructor takes no arguments for the constructor.
this means that the variables of the CommonValidatorConfig are not inherited.
Any help, also tutorials/docs/references or improvements of code are welcomed.

#SuperBuilder will do all the work for you:
#Getter
#SuperBuilder
public abstract class CommonValidatorConfig {
private boolean canBeNull;
private boolean canBeEmpty;
}
#SuperBuilder
public class StringValidatorConfig extends CommonValidatorConfig {
}
That's it.
If you need to add a custom method inside your builder, you can do so by adding the class header of the (abstract) builder class and add your method. Lombok will add all the rest of its methods. I suggest you copy the class header from the delombok output (run java -jar path/to/lombok.jar delombok -p path/to/ClassWithSuperBuilder.java).
#Getter
#SuperBuilder
public abstract class CommonValidatorConfig {
private boolean canBeNull;
private boolean canBeEmpty;
public static abstract class CommonValidatorConfigBuilder<C extends CommonValidatorConfig, B extends CommonValidatorConfig.CommonValidatorConfigBuilder<C, B>> {
public B setDefault() {
this.canBeNull = false;
this.canBeEmpty = false;
return self();
}
}
}
The "experimental" status of #SuperBuilder just means it may not receive bugfixes as quickly as stable features. Furthermore, there are plans to promote #SuperBuilder to stable.
The code Lombok generates is completely type-safe, there are no unchecked type conversions. So even if you later decide that you don't want #SuperBuilder anymore, you can simply de-lombok it. The resulting code will be better than your manual solution.

I'm not sure if this is the best way, but I solved in this way:
Superclass:
I added an AllArgsConstructor with AccessLevel PROTECTED.
#Getter
#AllArgsConstructor(access = AccessLevel.PROTECTED)
public abstract class CommonValidatorConfig<VC extends CommonValidatorConfig<VC>> {
private boolean canBeNull;
private boolean canBeEmpty;
public static abstract class CommonValidatorConfigBuilder<VC, VCB extends CommonValidatorConfigBuilder<VC, VCB>> {
protected boolean canBeNull;
protected boolean canBeEmpty;
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public VCB canBeNull(boolean canBeNull) {
this.canBeNull = canBeNull;
return (VCB) this;
}
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public VCB canBeEmpty(boolean canBeEmpty) {
this.canBeEmpty = canBeEmpty;
return (VCB) this;
}
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public VCB setDefault() {
this.canBeNull = false;
this.canBeEmpty = false;
return (VCB) this;
}
public abstract VC build();
}
}
Subclass:
1 - Removed lombok AllArgsConstructor.
2 - Declared the AllArgsConstructor and passed the variables to superclass constructor.
3 - Access to superclass variables using super keyword.
#Builder
public class StringValidatorConfig extends CommonValidatorConfig<StringValidatorConfig> {
private StringValidatorConfig(boolean canBeNull, boolean canBeEmpty) {
super(canBeNull, canBeEmpty);
}
public static class StringValidatorConfigBuilder extends CommonValidatorConfigBuilder<StringValidatorConfig, StringValidatorConfigBuilder> {
#Override
public StringValidatorConfig build() {
return new StringValidatorConfig(super.canBeNull, super.canBeEmpty);
}
}
}

How to get the class of the genereric parameter of a Interface from the interface

I have this Interface:
public interface Test<T> {
default Class<?> getT() {
return T.getClass(); < --error
}
}
next i have a class that implements it:
static class ItemService implements Test<Item>{
}
And i want to get the 'Item' class from the 'ItemService' class
static ItemService service = new ItemService();
private static void k() {
System.out.println(service.getT());
}
Now one way to do it is this:
public interface Test<T> {
default Class<?> getT() {
return Type.type;
}
class Type {
public static Class<?> type;
}
}
Service:
static class ItemService implements Test<Item> {
public ItemService() {
Type.type = Item.class;
}
}
And it works fine but there is a problem,
When another class implement the interface:
static class OrderService implements Test<Order> {
public OrderService() {
Type.type = Order.class;
}
}
And i try:
static ItemService service = new ItemService();
static OrderService orderservice = new OrderService();
private static void k() {
System.out.println(service.getT());
}
I get the Order class and not the Item class
How can i make it work?

Classes inside interfaces are static, You can remove the default from the function and every class will need to implement this. example:
public interface Test<T> {
public Class<T> getT();
}
static class ItemService implements Test<Item> {
public Class<Item> getT() {return Item.class;}
}
static class OrderService implements Test<Order>{
public Class<Order> getT() {return Order.class;}
}

An alternative could be an abstract class.
public interface Test<T> {
public Class<T> getT();
}
abstract class AbstractTest<T> implements Test<T> {
private final Class<T> type;
AbstractItemService(Class<T> type) { this.type = type }
public Class<T> getT() {return type;}
}
class ItemService extends AbstractTest<Item> {
ItemService() { super(Item.class); }
// implement other things
}
class OrderService extends AbstractTest<Order>{
OrderService() { super(Order.class); }
// implement other things
}

Here is another option, if your implementation has an instance of T.
interface Test<T>{
T getT();
default Class<?> getClassOfT(){
return getT().getClass();
}
}

setParent(this) with Java generics

I have a generic Element class which contains elements of the same class. Based on that I would then create concrete classes like
Boxes extends Element<Boxes>
The point I don't get is the
setParent(this);
Why do I need to cast it
setParent((C) this);
(and suppress type casting warnings)? Obviously I am missing something...
How would you change the class to have no casting and no warnings?
I would argue that "this" is a Element object (at minimum) and C as well.
public class Element<C extends Element<C>> {
List<C> children;
C parent = null;
public Element() {
}
void setChildren(List<C> children) {
this.children = children;
for (C c : children) {
c.setParent((C) this); // warning, without the cast: error
}
}
void setParent(C parent) {
this.parent = parent;
}

You get this error because this is of type Element<C> and not of type C.
The following would work:
public class Element<C extends Element<C>> {
List<C> children;
Element<C> parent = null;
public Element() {
}
void setChildren(List<C> children) {
this.children = children;
for (C c : children) {
c.setParent(this);
}
}
void setParent(Element<C> parent) {
this.parent = parent;
}
}
Btw, IDEs are pretty good explaining why you get such errors.

Because nothing guarantees that this is of type C.
For example, you could create an object this way:
Element<Boxes> e = new Element<>();
or this way:
class Container extends Element<Boxes> {}
...
Container c = new Container();

You can add protected abstract C self() method to Element<C> class and use it instead of (C) this:
public abstract class Element<C extends Element<C>> {
List<C> children;
C parent = null;
protected abstract C self();
void setChildren(List<C> children) {
this.children = children;
for (C c : children) {
c.setParent(self());
}
}
void setParent(C parent) {
this.parent = parent;
}
}
Now when you extend Element<C> you can implement self() just by returning this:
public class Boxes extends Element<Boxes> {
#Override
protected Boxes self() {
return this;
}
}
This is a pretty popular design. You can see it, for example, if you delombok builders which are generated with Lombok #SuperBuilder annotation:
public class Example {
private final int someField;
protected Example(ExampleBuilder<?, ?> b) {
this.someField = b.someField;
}
public static ExampleBuilder<?, ?> builder() {
return new ExampleBuilderImpl();
}
public static abstract class ExampleBuilder<C extends Example, B extends ExampleBuilder<C, B>> {
private int someField;
public B someField(int someField) {
this.someField = someField;
return self();
}
protected abstract B self();
public abstract C build();
public String toString() {
return "Example.ExampleBuilder(someField=" + this.someField + ")";
}
}
private static final class ExampleBuilderImpl extends ExampleBuilder<Example, ExampleBuilderImpl> {
protected Example.ExampleBuilderImpl self() {
return this;
}
public Example build() {
return new Example(this);
}
}
}

Which pattern to use to avoid code duplication with object value transformer

I want to get rid of the following code duplication within the MyFacadeBean. Consider the following situation:
public class FacadeBean implements Facade {
#EJB
private CrudService crudService;
#Inject
private FirstAssembler firstAssembler;
#Inject
private SecondAssembler secondAssembler;
#Inject
private ThirdAssembler thridAssembler;
#Inject
private FourthAssembler fourthAssembler;
#Override
public void save(FirstValue value) {
FirstEntity entity = this.firstAssembler.transformToEntity(value);
this.crudService.persist(entity);
}
#Override
public void save(SecondValue value) {
SecondEntity entity = this.secondAssembler.transformToEntity(value);
this.crudService.persist(entity);
}
#Override
public void save(ThirdValue value) {
ThirdEntity entity = this.thirdAssembler.transformToEntity(value);
this.crudService.persist(entity);
}
#Override
public void save(FourthValue value) {
FourthEntity entity = this.fourthAssembler.transformToEntity(value);
this.crudService.persist(entity);
}
}
public interface MyFacade {
void save(FirstValue value);
void save(SecondValue value);
}
With the CrudService:
public interface CrudService {
void persist(Object entity);
}
#Stateless
#Local(CrudService.class)
#TransactionAttribute(TransactionAttributeType.MANDATORY)
public class CrudServiceBean implements CrudService {
public static final String PERSISTENCE_UNIT_NAME = "my_persistence_unit";
private EntityManager entityManager;
#PersistenceContext(unitName = PERSISTENCE_UNIT_NAME)
public void setEntityManager(EntityManager entityManager) {
this.entityManager = entityManager;
}
#Override
public void persist(Object entity) {
this.entityManager.persist(entity);
}
}
With the following assemblers:
public class FirstAssembler extends AbstractAssembler<FirstEntity> {
public FirstEntity transformToEntity(FirstValue value) {
if (value == null)
return null;
FirstEntity entity = new FirstEntity();
transformAbstractValueToAbstractObject(value, entity);
entity.setFixedRate(value.getFixedRate());
entity.setStartDate(value.getStartDate());
return entity;
}
}
public class SecondAssembler extends AbstractAssembler<SecondEntity> {
public SecondEntity transformToEntity(SecondValue value) {
if (value == null)
return null;
SecondEntity entity = new SecondEntity();
transformAbstractValueToAbstractObject(value, entity);
entity.setTransactionType(value.getTransactionType());
entity.setValueDate(value.getValueDate());
return entity;
}
}
public abstract class AbstractAssembler<T extends AbstractEntity> {
protected void transformAbstractValueToAbstractObject(AbstractValue value, T object) {
object.setUniqueId(value.getUniqueId());
object.setNominalAmountValue(value.getNominalAmountValue());
}
}
With the following entities:
#Entity
public class FirstEntity extends AbstractEntity {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
#Id
#Column(name = "ID")
private Long id;
#Column(name = "START_DATE")
#Temporal(TemporalType.DATE)
private Date startDate;
#Column(name = "FIXED_RATE")
#Digits(integer = 1, fraction = 10)
private BigDecimal fixedRate;
public Long getId() {
return id;
}
public void setId(Long id) {
this.id = id;
}
public Date getStartDate() {
return startDate;
}
public void setStartDate(Date startDate) {
this.startDate = startDate;
}
public BigDecimal getFixedRate() {
return fixedRate;
}
public void setFixedRate(BigDecimal fixedRate) {
this.fixedRate = fixedRate;
}
}
#Entity
public class SecondEntity extends AbstractEntity {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
#Id
#Column(name = "ID")
private Long id;
#Column(name = "VALUE_DATE")
#Temporal(TemporalType.DATE)
private Date valueDate;
#Column(name = "TRANSACTION_TYPE")
#Enumerated(EnumType.STRING)
private TransactionType transactionType;
public Long getId() {
return id;
}
public void setId(Long id) {
this.id = id;
}
public Date getValueDate() {
return valueDate;
}
public void setValueDate(Date valueDate) {
this.valueDate = valueDate;
}
public TransactionType getTransactionType() {
return transactionType;
}
public void setTransactionType(TransactionType transactionType) {
this.transactionType = transactionType;
}
}
#MappedSuperclass
public abstract class AbstractEntity implements Serializable {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
#Column(name = "TRANSACTION_NOM_AMOUNT_VALUE")
#Digits(integer = 18, fraction = 5)
#Min(0)
private BigDecimal nominalAmountValue;
public BigDecimal getNominalAmountValue() {
return nominalAmountValue;
}
public void setNominalAmountValue(BigDecimal nominalAmountValue) {
this.nominalAmountValue = nominalAmountValue;
}
}
I tried the following approach:
public class FacadeBean implements Facade {
#Inject
private Assembler assembler;
#Inject
private AssemblerFactory assemblerFactory;
#Override
public <T extends AbstractValue> void save(T value) {
Assembler assembler = assemblerFactory.createAssembler(value);
AbstractEntity entity = assembler.transformToEntity(value);
this.crudService.persist(entity);
}
}
Problems are the AssemblerFactoryImpl and the AssemblerImpl in which I have to do instanceOf checks and castings...
Another idea would be to let the value know which transformer to use (or how to transform). But I want the value to be "dumb".
#Glenn Lane
public AbstractValue save(AbstractValue value) {
AbstractAssembler<AbstractValue, AbstractEntity> assembler = new FirstAssembler();
AbstractEntity entity = assembler.transformToEntity(value);
AbstractValue result = assembler.transformToValue(entity);
return result;
}
does not work, because of
Type mismatch: cannot convert from FirstAssembler to AbstractAssembler

I'm posting this as a separate answer, since I don't really think there's anything wrong with having a save method for every AbstractValue type.
First we'll establish your base value class for this example. I'm using an interface just so we don't muddy the waters. Your AbstractValue interface:
public interface AbstractValue
{
int getUniqueId();
double getNominalValue();
<T> T accept(AbstractValueVisitor<T> visitor);
}
And the "visitor interface":
public interface AbstractValueVisitor<T>
{
T visit(FirstValue value);
T visit(SecondValue value);
T visit(ThirdValue value);
T visit(FourthValue value);
}
I know you don't want intelligence baked into AbstractValue, but we are going to add one specification... that all concrete implementations of AbstractValue (all four) implement the accept method exactly this way:
#Override
public <T> T accept(AbstractValueVisitor<T> visitor)
{
return visitor.visit(this);
}
So that method is implemented four times: in all four value classes, exactly the same way. Because the visitor interface is aware of all concrete implementations, the appropriate method will be called for each particular value type. All three of these parts put together is the "visitor pattern".
Now we'll make an entity factory. Its job is to create the appropriate AbstractEntity when provided an AbstractValue:
public class AbstractEntityFactory
implements AbstractValueVisitor<AbstractEntity>
{
private static final AbstractEntityFactory INSTANCE;
static
{
INSTANCE = new AbstractEntityFactory();
}
// Singleton pattern
private AbstractEntityFactory()
{
}
public static AbstractEntity create(AbstractValue value)
{
if (value == null)
{
return null;
}
AbstractEntity e = value.accept(INSTANCE);
e.setNominalValue(value.getNominalValue());
e.setUniqueId(value.getUniqueId());
return e;
}
#Override
public AbstractEntity visit(FirstValue value)
{
FirstEntity entity = new FirstEntity();
// Set all properties specific to FirstEntity
entity.setFixedRate(value.getFixedRate());
entity.setStartDate(value.getStartDate());
return entity;
}
#Override
public AbstractEntity visit(SecondValue value)
{
SecondEntity entity = new SecondEntity();
// Set all properties specific to SecondEntity
entity.setTransactionType(value.getTransactionType());
entity.setValueDate(value.getValueDate());
return entity;
}
#Override
public AbstractEntity visit(ThirdValue value)
{
ThirdEntity entity = new ThirdEntity();
// Set all properties specific to ThirdEntity
return entity;
}
#Override
public AbstractEntity visit(FourthValue value)
{
FourthEntity entity = new FourthEntity();
// Set all properties specific to FourthEntity
return entity;
}
}
Now your facade implementation takes an AbstractValue, and you got that one save method you're looking for:
public class FacadeBean implements Facade
{
#EJB
private CrudService crudService;
#Override
public void save(AbstractValue value)
{
AbstractEntity entity = AbstractEntityFactory.create(value);
crudService.persist(entity);
}
}
Because your AbstractValue now follows the visitor pattern, you can do all sorts of polymorphic behavior. Such as:
public class AbstractValuePrinter implements AbstractValueVisitor<Void>
{
private final Appendable out;
public AbstractValuePrinter(Appendable out)
{
this.out = out;
}
private void print(String s)
{
try
{
out.append(s);
out.append('\n');
}
catch (IOException e)
{
throw new IllegalStateException(e);
}
}
#Override
public Void visit(FirstValue value)
{
print("I'm a FirstValue!");
print("Being a FirstValue is groovy!");
return null;
}
#Override
public Void visit(SecondValue value)
{
print("I'm a SecondValue!");
print("Being a SecondValue is awesome!");
return null;
}
#Override
public Void visit(ThirdValue value)
{
print("I'm a ThirdValue!");
print("Meh.");
return null;
}
#Override
public Void visit(FourthValue value)
{
print("I'm a ThirdValue!");
print("Derp.");
return null;
}
}
In this example, this visitor isn't returning anything... it's "doing" something, so we'll just set the return value as Void, since it's non-instantiatable. Then you print the value simply:
// (value must not be null)
value.accept(new AbstractValuePrinter(System.out));
Finally, the coolest part of the visitor pattern (in my opinion): you add FifthValue. You add the new method to your visitor interface:
T visit(FifthValue value);
And suddenly, you can't compile. You must address the lack of this handling in two places: AbstractEntityFactory and AbstractValuePrinter. Which is great, because you should consider it in those places. Doing class comparisons (with either instanceof or rinde's solution of a class-to-factory map) is likely to "miss" the new value type, and now you have runtime bugs... especially if you're doing 100 different things with these value types.
Anyhoo, I didn't want to get into this, but there you go :)

Use a generic method with a bound type parameter in order to spare yourself the repetition:
public <T extends AbstractValue> T save(T value) {...}
Within the method body, you'll be able to reference the argument value with all methods pertaining to AbstractValue.
Notes
Since your save methods seem to be overrides in this example, you might need to change the design of the parent class or interface too.
You could also use a generic class to start with (instead of a generic method in a non-necessarily generic class), depending on your use case.

I think a problem in your code is that the generic type of AbstractAssembler is that of the output of the transform method, not the input. If you change it as follows:
public abstract class AbstractAssembler<T extends AbstractValue> {
protected void transformAbstractValueToAbstractObject(AbstractEntity entity, T value) {
entity.setUniqueId(value.getUniqueId());
entity.setNominalAmountValue(value.getNominalAmountValue());
}
public abstract AbstractEntity transformToEntity(T value);
}
Then you can change the FacadeBean to the following.
public class FacadeBean {
#EJB
private CrudService crudService;
final Map<Class<?>, AbstractAssembler<?>> knownAssemblers;
FacadeBean() {
knownAssemblers = new LinkedHashMap<>();
knownAssemblers.put(FirstValue.class, new FirstAssembler());
knownAssemblers.put(SecondValue.class, new SecondAssembler());
// add more assemblers here
}
public <T extends AbstractValue> void save(T value, Class<T> type) {
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked") // safe cast
final AbstractAssembler<T> assembler =
(AbstractAssembler<T>) knownAssemblers.get(type);
final AbstractEntity entity = assembler.transformToEntity(value);
this.crudService.persist(entity);
}
}
Notice that I changed the signature of the save(..) method such that we have the type of the object that needs to be saved. With this type we can simply lookup the right assembler that should be used. And because the assembler is now generic on its input type, we can do a safe cast (be careful to keep your map consistent).
This implementation avoids duplication of code as you only need one save method. The use of the instanceof operator is prevented by changing the generic type of AbstractAssembler and storing all assemblers in a map.
The assemblers can look like this:
public class FirstAssembler extends AbstractAssembler<FirstValue> {
#Override
public FirstEntity transformToEntity(FirstValue value) {
final FirstEntity entity = new FirstEntity();
// do transformational stuff
super.transformAbstractValueToAbstractObject(entity, value);
entity.setFixedRate(value.getFixedRate());
entity.setStartDate(value.getStartDate());
return entity;
}
}
public class SecondAssembler extends AbstractAssembler<SecondValue> {
#Override
public SecondEntity transformToEntity(SecondValue value) {
final SecondEntity entity = new SecondEntity();
// do transformational stuff
super.transformAbstractValueToAbstractObject(entity, value);
return entity;
}
}
Note: I'm not familiar with Java beans so you probably have to adapt the code a little if you want to use the #Injected assemblers instead of calling the constructors directly.

You're getting close to gold-plating here, but there is a bit of reduction you can do, specifically the null-check and calling the common field-setting method from each extension.
public abstract class AbstractAssembler<V extends AbstractValue, E extends AbstractEntity>
{
public final E transformToEntity(V value)
{
if (value == null)
{
return null;
}
E entity = createEntity(value);
entity.setUniqueId(value.getUniqueId());
entity.setNominalAmountValue(value.getNominalAmountValue());
return entity;
}
/**
* #return
* Appropriate entity object, with the fields not common to all AbstractEntity
* already set
*/
protected abstract E createEntity(V value);
}
And then the extended assembler:
public class FirstAssembler extends AbstractAssembler<FirstValue, FirstEntity>
{
#Override
protected FirstEntity createEntity(FirstValue value)
{
FirstEntity entity = new FirstEntity();
entity.setFixedRate(value.getFixedRate());
entity.setStartDate(value.getStartDate());
return entity;
}
}
If you really want a single factory class to handle all your values/entities, I would look into the visitor pattern, enhanced with a generic type parameter on the visitor interface (and the entity/value accept methods return a type based on the visiting interface). I won't show an example here simply because I don't think it's warranted in your case.

You can have one save method from the point of view of the classes that save those values, but you still have to implement three individual save methods.
Implement a class with all three save methods. For example:
public class ValuePersister {
#Inject
private Assembler1 assembler1;
#Inject
private Assembler2 assembler2;
#Inject
private Assembler3 assembler3;
public Value1 save(Value1 value1, CrudService crudService) {
Entity1 entity1 = assembler1.transformToObject(value1);
crudService.persist(entity1);
return assembler1.transformToValue(entity1);
}
public Value2 save(Value2 value2, CrudService crudService) {
Entity2 entity2 = assembler2.transformToObject(value2);
crudService.persist(entity2);
return assembler2.transformToValue(entity2);
}
public Value3 save(Value3 value3, CrudService crudService) {
Entity3 entity3 = assembler3.transformToObject(value3);
crudService.persist(entity3);
return assembler3.transformToValue(entity3);
}
}
Add an abstract method to AbstractValue:
public abstract AbstractValue save(ValuePersister valuePersister, CrudService crudService);
Implement that method in each class that extends AbstractValue:
#Override
public AbstractValue save(ValuePersister valuePersister, CrudService crudService) {
return valuePersister.save(this, crudService);
}
Inject ValuePersister and implement your original generic save method:
#Inject
private ValuePersister valuePersister;
#Override
public AbstractValue save(AbstractValue value) {
return value.save(valuePersister, crudService)
}

Target Unreachable, 'current' returned null - AbstractFactory

I'm trying to access an object inside a managed bean, which implements AbstractMB. Any property accessed by a page has error "Unknown property". When I try to insert it in the database,through a commandButton, PropertyNotFoundException is thrown.
AbstractMB relevant code:
public abstract class AbstractMB<T> implements Serializable {
private Class<T> type;
private AbstractDAO<T> typeDAO;
private T current;
private List<T> elements = new ArrayList();
protected T object = this.getCurrent();
protected List<T> list = this.getElements();
public abstract void save(ActionEvent actionEvent);
public AbstractMB() {}
public AbstractMB(Class<T> type) {
super();
this.type = type;
}
public T getCurrent() {
return current;
}
public void setCurrent(T current) {
this.current = current;
}
}
Full FonteMB class:
#Named
#RequestScoped
public class FonteMB extends AbstractMB<Fonte> {
public FonteMB() {
super(Fonte.class);
}
#Override
public void save(ActionEvent actionEvent) {
if(this.object.getCodigo() == null) {
this.getTypeDAO().add(this.object);
} else {
this.getTypeDAO().edit(this.object);
}
this.object = new Fonte();
this.list = null;
}
}
Class Fonte from the model package implements java.io.Serializable, all getter and setter, hashCode and equals methods. And toString returning the class name ("Fonte").
Also tried to use a converter, but result was the same.
What I'm missing?