I'm on my first project for generating java beans from xsd files. The generation works perfectly well, but now I want to add some special features to the generated classes. Modifying the generated code would be a bad idea, because it would be lost as soon as someone updates the code.
I don't understand how to get beans with custom functionallity generated from the unmarshalling process. Can you please point me in the right direction?
Thanks
Those generated classes are just value objects, so it won't be really a good idea to add any custom logic in them. However if you just need to make those generated classes more usable with better getters/setter, fluid API, etc, you could add some xjc plugins or even write your own plugin.
#EugeneKuleshov's answer is a good one. additionally, i believe you can configure xjc to generate interfaces instead of classes, and then you can implement the interfaces using your own custom model classes.
And what about extending the generated classes and overriding those methods you need?
Related
I'm currently developing a software where the user can define a complex hierarchy of objects as settings.
Also this settings objects will provide interfaces as an API for other developers.
Now I want to store these setting and reload it.
I'm currently considering different ways to do exactly that, but none of my solutions are "good" in my opinion.
The main goals should be:
It should output a String, because i prefer a human readable configuration over a fast one.
It should be reliable even when the the code is changing. This means not it should do magic, but it should be obvious that an change could break already stored configuration. (Eg. How do I prevent that my colleague renaming a class and breaking production. )
Storing and loading should work with object, interfaces and generics.
Keep configuration of what is stored how as low as possible. I would prefer convention over configuration.
I know many of you faced the same or a similar issue while developing.
So what was your solution? Which framework did you use and why?
All solutions I came up with are either not reliant, a huge configuration or to much code.
So I'm looking forward to get some good new perspectives on this topic from all of you.
Thanks.
I would recommend XStream. Without any configuration it has similar capabilities as java.io.*ObjectStream but outputs XML instead of binary blob. You will only want to add few aliases for class names to make file more readable.
I recommend to specify a XSD and use JAXB to generate the Java classes and marshal and unmarshal XML based settings files.
Make sure the root tag contains the version of the XSD. You can use StAX to read the version first and determine the correct version of JAXB classes if you need to support several versions.
For further information this how i solved this problem now:
I used Gson for serializing the object hierarchy to JSON. Added an Generic TypeAdapter to it for serializing and deserializing all known Interfaces. This adapter saves the class name into the JSON object and constructs this class while deserializing. No additional configuration is needed, besides registering this TypeAdapter for each used Interface.
In order to make it reliable I will add an Unit Test to the project that will deserialize the complete possible configuration. So any changes to the code will break the tests.
In this way i can fulfill all of the points mentioned above.
I hope this helps anyone.
As good as the Java API is, I need to change the code of some classes in the default API packages (for example java.util.Scanner) for a project I am working on.
Ideally, I would extend the classes I am interested and create my own sub-classes, but the classes I want to extend are declared 'final'. How do you suggest I do this? Will I get into trouble with the compiler if I customize the source code of these packages?
If you can, you should rather wrap and delegate, as suggested in another answer. See the Adapter Pattern.
But there are of course ways to do this if you really need it.
A straightforward approach is to simply modify the code in downloaded sources and substitute your own version of a jar in the classpath.
Another option is to use aspect-oriented programming techniques, likely with AspectJ to intercept and modify calls as needed.
It might also be possible to hack together a solution using reflection and home-grown classloaders, but it will be painful to code.
All of these are however quite risky if you don't know what you're doing. Frequently classes are made final for good reason.
If you tell us more specifically what it is you're hoping to change, we might be able to provide assistance in avoiding what you currently think you need.
you really cant extend a final class..
if u really want to add a functionality by extending a class you can do it by modifying class src. from JDK and save it as your own class and use it.
Don't do that. Write your own code which wraps around the original scanner and use that. To update internal packages, there is an endorsed directory property which you can provide at runtime.
Never do it! Never change core classes. If class is final - use composition not inheritance.
I'm trying to identify places where annotation names are the same or similar to compile a list of these things to make sure our team knows where possible points of confusion can be found. For example, Guice #provides and RESTeasy #provider are similar enough in spelling but different enough in semantics as to confuse people so I'd like to call that out explicitly and explain the differences.
What I'm looking for is a tool or even a website that enumerates the annotations associated with packages. This might be a pipe dream, but before I manually start going through and collecting these things I thought I'd check.
I was considering writing one based on Javadoc that simply only pulled in the annotations but I don't have access to Java source files in many cases.
Any thoughts or suggestions?
In Eclipse you can use the standard method "Search for references" (context menu of a used annotation References -> Project) and you are getting a list where the annotations is used within your project.
I suggest to scan for annotations yourself and generate a list for that.
You can do that by writing your own implementation of an annotation processer, i.e. extend AbstractProcessor. Within this processor you can write a text file containing all Annotations. You can add this processor to your build procedure, then it will execute the processor when you build the project.
Another way to do this is using the Google Reflections library. This might be a bit more work since you would need to write a small programm to fetch the annotations and write the file.
I wrote such a tool: https://github.com/MoserMichael/ls-annotations
it decompiles the byte code and lists declarations (classes, functions, variables) with annotations only. You can also use it to find all classes/interfaces derived from a given class/inerface - and all the classes/interfaces derived from a given class/interface.
The tool uses the asm library to scan class files and to extract annotations. it can detect annotations with retention policy CLASS and RUNTIME. It can't detect annotations with retention policy SOURCE that are not put into bytecode, for example #Override is one of these.
Why not scanning your classpath and export all used annotations? Then just use some simple parsing / text compare to see the elements with almost the same name?
My project is slowly implementing Java annotations. Half of the developers - myself included - find that doing anything complex with annotations seems to add to our overall maintenance burden. The other half of the team thinks they're the bee's knees.
What's your real-world experience with teams of developers being able to maintain annotated code?
My personal experience is that, on average, dealing with annotations is far easier for most developers than dealing with your standard Java XML Configuration hell. For things like JPA and Spring testing they are absolute life-savers.
The good thing about annotations is that they make configuration on your classes self-documenting. Now, instead of having to search through a huge XML file to try and figure out how a framework is using your class, your class tells you.
Usually the issue with changes like this is that getting used to them simply takes time. Most people, including developers, resist change. I remember when I started working with Spring. For the first few weeks I wondered why anyone would put up with the headaches associated with it. Then, a few weeks later, I wondered how I'd ever lived without it.
I feel it breaks into two uses of annotations - annotations to provide a 'description' of a class vs. annotations to provide a 'dependency' of the class.
I'm fine with a 'description' use of annotations on the class - that's something that belongs on the class and the annotation helps to make a shorthand version of that - JPA annotations fall under this.
However, I don't really like the 'dependency' annotations - if you're putting the dependency directly on the class - even if it's determined at runtime from an annotation rather than at compile time in the class - isn't that breaking dependency injection? (perhaps in spirit rather than in rule...)
It may be personal preference, but I like the one big XML file that contains all the dependency information of my application - I view this as 'application configuration' rather than 'class configuration'. I'd rather search through the one known location than searching through all the classes in the app.
It depends highly on IDE support. I feel that annotations should be kept in sync with the code via checks in the IDE, but that support for this is somewhat lacking.
E.g. the older version of IDEA would warn if you overrode a function without #Override, but wouldn't remove the #Override tag if you changed the method signature (or the superclass signature, for that matter) and broke the relation.
Without support I find them a cumbersome way to add metadata to code.
I absolutely love annotations. I use them from Hibernate/JPA, Seam, JAXB....anything that I can. IMO there's nothing worse than having to open up an XML file just to find out how a class is handled.
To my eye annotations allow a class to speak for itself. Also annotations are (hopefully) part of your IDEs content assist, whereas with XML config you are usually on your own.
However, it may come down to how the XML configs and Annotations are actually used by any particular library (as most offer both), and what sort of annotation is used. I can imagine that annotations that define something that is build-specific (eg. file/url paths) may actually be easier as XML config.
i personally feel that the the specific use case you mentioned (auto-generate web forms) is a great use case for annotations. any sort of "framework" scenario where you can write simplified code and let the framework do the heavy (often repetitive) lifting based on a few suggestions (aka annotations) is, i think, the ideal use case for annotations.
i'm curious why you don't like annotations in this situation, and what you consider to be the "maintenance burden"? (and, i'm not trying to insult your position, just understand it).
I am currently using Hibernate Tools 3.1; I customized naming convention and DAO templates. The database (SQL Server 2005) in early development phase and I'm in charge of rebuilding the mappings, entities, DAOs, configuration, whatever. Each time I have to reverse-engineer the tables and so I lose every customization I made on the mappings (*.hbm.xml files) like adjusting the identity columns, picking the fields used in equals and toString. I was considering to write the diff XML in a file and the "merge" that onto the generated mapping (see my related question) but I was wondering... is there any best practice/tool for dealing with these annoying, unavoidable, critical tasks?
I'd strongly recommend against continual reverse engineering. Reverse engineering is a great one time thing, but changes need to be managed as changes to both the hbm and the database.
We use migrations to manage db changes, and we include the associated changes in the hbm. If Hibernate has it (I believe it does) you may want to look into annotations instead of an hbm, they can be quite a bit easier to maintain.
This is two and a half years late, but I'll offer a dissenting opinion. You should be able to make any customizations you need to the mapping files through the hibernate.reveng.xml file or a custom ReverseEngineeringStrategy. For the classes themselves, you should always generate to base classes and extend them with classes containing custom code.
For example, generate com.company.vo.generated.CustomerGenerated and extend it with com.company.vo.custom.Customer. Code generation should overwrite all classes in the generated package but never in the custom package (although you can have Hibernate Tools generate these custom classes in the target directory so that you can copy and paste blanks into the custom directory as needed). This way you can override methods for equals, toString, etc in the custom classes and not lose your changes when you regenerate. Also note that the best practice is to not check in generated code into SCM.
There are some great examples on this site of how to achieve this using Maven, the Hibernate3 plugin, and the build helper plugin. Most of these have very helpful answers by Pascal Thivent. This method is working beautifully for me, and while there is a bit of a learning curve it's a wonderful thing to be able to propagate database changes to the app with a single Maven command.