We Keep Coding

Implementing a ConstraintValidation for an enum

I am looking to go from using POJOs to enums. One thing that's in my way is hibernate validation. I have been looking up how to apply validations to enum classes, but at most I am finding information on how to validate an enum property of a POJO, which is not what I want.
An example of the enum class I want to validate is;
EMAIL("email","v1",STRING),
FIRST_NAME("firstName","v1",STRING),
LAST_NAME("lastName","v1",STRING),
AGE("age","v1",INTEGER)
I haven't seen of or heard of using annotations on enums, but is there a way to write a custom validator that will check each enum and make sure its not null and is of the correct type?
The enums will not be saved to the db, they will be parsed and transferred to another service that will then save it to the db. I would parse first then validate but the way the code is written, this can't be done. I want to validate that the enums are meeting the db constraints

Java mapping an object model to classes

Given some sort of document object model with methods like int getInt(String col), getFloat, getString, getDate, etc., and classes wither either plain public fields, or public setters such as setName(String), setAge(int), etc. I want to map my document record to the specified Java type.
I have seen this done with various large JSON, SQL, etc. libraries, just by taking say MyRecordObject.class at run time, no compile time code gen using any sort of schema files.
But how is this implemented? Does Java have some sort of low-level interface for representing a DOM/record structure and mapping it to specific Java classes?
//to create something like this
Record record = readRecordFromMyGenericFileFormat();
TodoItem todo = record.as(TodoItem.class);

The general idea is to use reflection to dynamically set the values of fields in an instance of a Class.
Apache BeanUtils might be useful and save you some trouble. Example
Employee employee = ...;
PropertyUtils.setSimpleProperty(employee, "firstName", firstNameValue);
PropertyUtils.setSimpleProperty(employee, "lastName", lastNameValue);
You'd have to fetch the field name ("firstName") and value (firstNameValue) from your generic file format.
If the field name information is not available in your file format, perhaps getting the fields dynamically via reflection could work for your use case.
There are multiple high quality tutorials on Java Reflection online.

Best practice design pattern for defining "types" in a database with potential multi language requirement?

My question more specificity is this:
I want users on multiple front ends to see the "Type" of a database row. Let's say for ease that I have a person table and the types can be Student, Teacher, Parent etc.
The specific program would be java with hibernate, however I doubt that's important for the question, but let's say my data is modelled in to Entity beans and a Person "type" field is an enum that contains my 3 options, ideally I want my Person object to have a getType() method that my front end can use to display the type, and also I need a way for my front end to know the potential types.
With the enum method I have this functionality but what I don't have is the ability to easily add new types without re-compiling.
So next thought is that I put my types in to a config file and simply story them in the database as strings. my getType() method works, but now my front end has to load a config file to get the potential types AND now there's nothing to keep them in sync, I could remove a type from my config file and the type in the database would point to nothing. I don't like this either.
Final thought is that I create a PersonTypes database table, this table has a number for type_id and a string defining the type. This is OK, and if the foreign key is set up I can't delete types that I'm using, my front end will need to get sight of potential types, I guess the best way is to provide a service that will use the hibernate layer to do this.
The problem with this method is that my types are all in English in the database, and I want my application to support multiple languages (eventually) so I need some sort of properties file to store the labels for the types. so do I have a PersonType table the purely contains integers and then a properties file that describes the label per integer? That seems backwards?
Is there a common design pattern to achieve this kind of behaviour? Or can anyone suggest a good way to do this?
Regards,
Glen x

I would go with the last approach that you have described. Having the type information in separate table should be good enought and it will let you use all the benefits of SQL for managing additional constraints (types will be probably Unique and foreign keys checks will assure you that you won't introduce any misbehaviour while you delete some records).
When each type will have i18n value defined in property files, then you are safe. If the type is removed - this value will not be used. If you want, you can change properties files as runtime.
The last approach I can think of would be to store i18n strings along with type information in PersonType. This is acceptable for small amount of languages, altough might be concidered an antipattern. But it would allow you having such method:
public String getName(PersonType type, Locale loc) {
if (loc.equals(Locale.EN)) {
return type.getEnglishName();
} else if (loc.equals(Locale.DE)){
return type.getGermanName();
} else {
return type.getDefaultName();
}
}

Internationalizing dynamic values is always difficult. Your last method for storing the types is the right one.
If you want to be able to i18n them, you can use resource bundles as properties files in your app. This forces you to modify the properties files and redeploy and restart the app each time a new type is added. You can also fall back to the English string stored in database if the type is not found in the resource bundle.
Or you can implement a custom ResourceBundle class that fetches its keys and values from the database directly, and have an additional PersonTypeI18n table which contains the translations for all the locales you want to support.

You can use following practices:
Use singleton design pattern
Use cashing framework such as EhCashe for cashe type of person and reload when need.

How to avoid a large if-else statement in Java

I'm developing a framework in java which relies on a number of XML files with large number of parameters.
When reading the parameters from the XML file, I have to have a large if-else statement to decide what the parameters is and then call appropriate methods.
Is this normal? to have a large if-else statement?
I am thinking that there is a simple and neater way of doing this, e.g. Java XML mapping or Java Reflections? is this the answer? if so, can you please provide examples of how this is done so I don't have to rely on a large if-else statement?
Thanks!

You want to first create an interface:
public interface XMLParameterHandler {
public handle_parameter (String XMLData);
}
Next you want to create a map:
private Map<string, XMLParameterHandler> handlers;
...and initialize it with one of the relevant Map implementations:
this.handlers = new HashMap<>();
You need to implement the interface on a number of classes, one for each parameter you intend to handle. This is a good use of inner classes. Insert each of these implemented handerls into the map:
handlers.put ("Param1", new XMLParam1HandlerImpl());
handlers.put ("Param2", new XMLParam2HandlerImpl());
Then you can call the handler from the xml processing loop:
handlers.get (paramValue).handle_parameter(XmlData);

There is JAXB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Architecture_for_XML_Binding) for mapping java class to xml.
But you can't map methods with it: you only can map attributes to xml file values (deserialize parameters from xml).

i recommend to use Map, that have parameter as key and xml entry as value(not whole xml)

Reflection would be one approach. Perhaps combined with a custom annotation on the target method to indicate which parameter to pass to that method. This is an advanced technique, though.
A more standard technique would be to use a map, where the key is the attribute name, and the value is an instance of an implementation of some interface you define, like AttributeHandler. The implementations then contain the code for each attribute. This involves writing a lot of little classes, but you can do them as anonymous classes to save space and keep the code inline.

a large if-else statement to decide what the parameters is and then call appropriate methods
You could instead use the Strategy design pattern, with one Strategy object per parameter, and use a map from the parameter name to the Strategy object to use. I've found this approach useful for even a moderately complicated application of XML.

It sounds to me as if you want a data-driven rule-based approach to writing your application, rather like you get in XSLT. One way of achieving this is to write it in XSLT instead of Java - XSLT, after all, was specifically designed for processing XML, while Java wasn't. If you can't do that, you could study how XSLT does it using rules and actions, and emulate this design in your Java code.

N functions with M parameters can always be implemented with a single function with M + 1 parameters.
If you need a big if then else statement to decide which method to dispatch to, then you can just add a parameter to your method and call a single method.
You shouldn't need an if-then-else statement to bind the parameter values.
If there is complex logic dependent on the particular parameter values, you might use a table driven approach. You can map various combinations of paramemter values into equivalence classes, then variouos equivalence class combinations into a row in a table with a unique id, then have a switch statement based on that unique id.

Persisting data suited for enums

Most projects have some sort of data that are essentially static between releases and well-suited for use as an enum, like statuses, transaction types, error codes, etc. For example's sake, I'll just use a common status enum:
public enum Status {
ACTIVE(10, "Active");
EXPIRED(11, "Expired");
/* other statuses... */
/* constructors, getters, etc. */
}
I'd like to know what others do in terms of persistence regarding data like these. I see a few options, each of which have some obvious advantages and disadvantages:
Persist the possible statuses in a status table and keep all of the possible status domain objects cached for use throughout the application
Only use an enum and don't persist the list of available statuses, creating a data consistency holy war between me and my DBA
Persist the statuses and maintain an enum in the code, but don't tie them together, creating duplicated data
My preference is the second option, although my DBA claims that our end users might want to access the raw data to generate reports, and not persisting the statuses would lead to an incomplete data model (counter-argument: this could be solved with documentation).
Is there a convention that most people use here? What are peoples' experiences with each and are there other alternatives?
Edit:
After thinking about it for a while, my real persistence struggle comes with handling the id values that are tied to the statuses in the database. These values would be inserted as default data when installing the application. At this point they'd have ids that are usable as foreign keys in other tables. I feel like my code needs to know about these ids so that I can easily retrieve the status objects and assign them to other objects. What do I do about this? I could add another field, like "code", to look stuff up by, or just look up statuses by name, which is icky.

We store enum values using some explicit string or character value in the database. Then to go from database value back to enum we write a static method on the enum class to iterate and find the right one.
If you expect a lot of enum values, you could create a static mapping HashMap<String,MyEnum> to translate quickly.
Don't store the actual enum name (i.e. "ACTIVE" in your example) because that's easily refactored by developers.

I'm using a blend of the three approaches you have documented...
Use the database as the authoritative source for the Enum values. Store the values in a 'code' table of some sort. Each time you build, generate a class file for the Enum to be included in your project.
This way, if the enum changes value in the database, your code will be properly invalidated and you will receive appropriate compile errors from your Continuous Integration server. You have a strongly typed binding to your enumerated values in the database, and you don't have to worry about manually syncing the values between code and the data.

Joshua Bloch gives an excellent explanation of enums and how to use them in his book "Effective Java, Second Edition" (p.147)
There you can find all sorts of tricks how to define your enums, persist them and how to quickly map them between the database and your code (p.154).
During a talk at the Jazoon 2007, Bloch gave the following reasons to use an extra attribute to map enums to DB fields and back: An enum is a constant but code isn't. To make sure that a developer editing the source can't accidentally break the DB mapping by reordering the enums or renaming then, you should add a specific attribute (like "dbName") to the enum and use that to map it.
Enums have an intrinsic id (which is used in the switch() statement) but this id changes when you change the order of elements (for example by sorting them or by adding elements in the middle).
So the best solution is to add a toDB() and fromDB() method and an additional field. I suggest to use short, readable strings for this new field, so you can decode a database dump without having to look up the enums.

While I am not familiar with the idea of "attributes" in Java (and I don't know what language you're using), I've generally used the idea of a code table (or domain specific tables) and I've attributed my enum values with more specific data, such as human readable strings (for instance, if my enum value is NewStudent, I would attribute it with "New Student" as a display value). I then use Reflection to examine the data in the database and insert or update records in order to bring them in line with my code, using the actual enum value as the key ID.

What I used in several occations is to define the enum in the code and a storage representation in the persistence layer (DB, file, etc.) and then have conversion methods to map them to each other. These conversion methods need only be used when reading from or writing to the persistent store and the application can use the type safe enums everywhere. In the conversion methods I used switch statements to do the mapping. This allows also to throw an exception if a new or unknown state is to be converted (usually because either the app or the data is newer than the other and new or additional states had been declared).

If there's at least a minor chance that list of values will need to be updated than it's 1. Otherwise, it's 3.

Well we don't have a DBA to answer to, so our preference is for option 2).
We simply save the Enum value into the database, and when we are loading data out of the database and into our Domain Objects, we just cast the integer value to the enum type.
This avoids any of the synchronisation headaches with options 1) and 3). The list is defined once - in the code.
However, we have a policy that nobody else accesses the database directly; they must come through our web services to access any data. So this is why it works well for us.

In your database, the primary key of this "domain" table does't have to be a number. Just use a varchar pk and a description column (for the purposes your dba is concerned). If you need to guarantee the ordering of your values without relying on the alphabetical sor, just add a numeric column named "order or "sequence".
In your code, create a static class with constants whose name (camel-cased or not) maps to the description and value maps to the pk. If you need more than this, create a class with the necessary structure and comparison operators and use instances of it as the value of the constants.
If you do this too much, build a script to generate the instatiation / declaration code.