I'm using JPA 1, Hibernate and Oracle 10.2.0 and my entities are defined like this:
#Entity
#Table(name="TERMS")
public class Term implements Serializable {
#Id
#GenericGenerator(name = "generator", strategy = "guid", parameters = {})
#GeneratedValue(generator = "generator")
#Column(name="TERM_ID")
private String termId;
}
I have a situation where an XML representation of the Entity (and child entities) will be coming in through a web service to update/replace existing ones. My thought was to just delete the old ones and re-create it from the incoming XML.
However, doing a persist when my entities having existing IDs seem to make Hibernate very angry. So is this actually possible or is it better to avoid deleting them and just trying to do it with merge?
Angriness from hibernate:
org.hibernate.PersistentObjectException: detached entity passed to persist: com.idbs.omics.catalog.entity.Term
Thanks
My thought was to just delete the old ones and re-create it from the incoming XML. However, doing a persist when my entities having existing IDs seem to make Hibernate very angry..
Indeed, you cannot assign an Id when it is supposed to be generated, at least not with Hibernate that won't consider the entity as new but as detached (the JPA specification is a bit blurry on the exact rules in this case but that's how Hibernate behaves, see 5.1.4.5. Assigned identifiers for more hints).
So is this actually possible or is it better to avoid deleting them and just trying to do it with merge?
To make the delete/insert possible for the web service use case, you'd have to either:
not assign the id ~or~
use a special version of the entity without a generated identifier ~or~
use bulk operations(?)
The alternative if you're actually updating detached entities would be indeed to use a merge (but have a look at these previous questions just in case).
Which approach is better? I don't know, it think it depends on your needs. The later seems more natural if you're updating existing entities. With the former, you'd really get "new" entities (including a new value for the optimistic locking column). Depending on the exact implementation of the process, performances might also vary. And, by the way, what about concurrency (just to mention it, I'm not really expecting an answer)?
You can use EntityManager.merge to save an updated version of the entity. Be aware that this returns another object than the one you pass to it, because it basically fetches the entity from the database, updates the persistent properties from the object you pass and saves the persistent object.
See http://blog.xebia.com/2009/03/23/jpa-implementation-patterns-saving-detached-entities/ for more information on this problem.
Related
After reading a bit on the topic, I am a bit lost on the Hibernate/JPA requirements for #Entity equality. Do I really have to adjust my #EqualsAndHashCode to make my entities equal based on the db uniqueness still in 2020? What's the point of the #Id metannotation then?
I need to be able to compare my entities at object level, so for now I just implemented my EqualsAndHashCode according to all fields besides #Id.
What are exactly the problems I can face if I keep on with that approach? Isn't anyway the db gonna throw an exception if for some reason Hibernate tries to store or mix 2 entities that have same #Id but are not equals with my implementation? Is it really a risk? I am pretty sure Ive seen in the past a lot of projects with proper tests and noone defining any particular #EqualsAndHashCode, so by default is just comparing the instances, and those projects passed all kind of CRUD tests green, and had no bugs on production
Basically, you'd get some problems when you have bi-directional relationships between entities. For example, if Entity1 has #OneToMany access to Entity2, and Entity2 has #ManyToOne access to EntityId, and both of these entities have #EqualsAndHashcode without specifying fields (i.e., equals and hashcode are generated for all fields including those for relations). In this case, you'd have a circular reference, hence a StackOverflow exception.
In order to avoid that, you can rely only on a field with #Id for constructing equals and hashcode (there are some examples with this approach in hibernate docs). But in this case, you'd get another kind of problems, e.g. if you store transient entities with auto-generated ids in a set (as child entities for some parent one), it wouldn't work correctly because the id field will be null in this case. Probably, you'd need to use some other fields in equals and hashcode in this case.
So, there is no correct answer to this question. You need to make a decision every time you construct your entities.
I would like to do a simple update on a managed JPA entity on many fields.
First I query the entity which I would like to update:
MyEntity managedEntity = entityManager.createQuery(query).getSingleResult();
Then I need to update this entity with a new "MyEntity" object which is not managed by JPA:
MyEntity notManagedEntity = new MyEntity();
Of course it would be possible to read each field from notManagedEntity and set them to managedEntity which would do the update.
But is there a more elagant way to update the managed entity without needing to get and set every field one by one?
AFAIK, it's not a good idea to change a reference to a managed entity, because the persistence context will still reference the old entity, so any flush would trigger an exception... It's even more important when working with complex entities holding collections or ManyToOne references.
A related topic: What is the best way to update the entity in JPA
I would suggest to read the question:
Copy all values from fields in one class to another through reflection
This looks like the answer to your question. You then have to create a copy of the entiy you got from
MyEntity managedEntity = entityManager.createQuery(query).getSingleResult();
After you created the copy of you java object, you have to set the identifier from the entity an new value an inset this new Object to the persistent layer again.
From desinge perpective it looks a bit confusing, but if this is the request, at least from technical perspective it should work.
Short version for the hasty:
There's various tables/entities in my domain model which have the same field (a UUID). There is a table where I need to link rows/instances of such entities to other JPA-managed entities. In other words, the instance of the field in that link table won't be known up-front. The two approaches I can think of are:
Use an abstract entity and a TABLE_PER_CLASS strategy, or
use an #MappedSuperClass store the class name of the instance in the link table as well, or something similar that lets me define logic for getting the actual instance from the right table.
Both have advantages and disadvantages in terms of complexity and performance. Which do you believe to be best, is there maybe a third option, or have you tried something like this in the past and would advice/strongly warn against?
Long version in case you want more background:
I have a database/object model wherein many types have a common field: a universally unique identifier (UUID). The reason for this is that instances of these types can be subject to changes. The changes follow the command model and their data can be encapsulated and itself persisted. Let's call such a change a "mutation". It must be possible to find out which mutations exist in the database for any given entity, and vice-versa, on which entity a stored mutation operates.
Take the following entities with UUIDs as an (extremely simplified) example:
To store the "mutations", we use a table/entity called MutationHolder. To link a mutation to its target entity, there's a MutationEntityLink. The only reason this data isn't directly on the MutationHolder is because there can be direct or indirect links, but that's of little importance here so I left it out:
The question comes down to how I can model the entity field in MutationEntityLink. There are two approaches I can think of.
The first is to make an abstract #Entity annotated class with the UUID field. Customer, Contract and Address would extend it. So it is a TABLE_PER_CLASS strategy. I assume that I could use this as a type for the entity field, although I'm not certain. However, I fear this might have a serious performance penalty since JPA would need to query many tables to find the actual instance.
The second is to simply use #MappedSuperClass and just store the UUID for an entity in the entity field of MutationEntityLink. In order to get the actual entity with that UUID, I'd have to solve it programmatically. Adding an additional column with the class name of the entity, or something else that allows me to identify it or paste it in a JPQL query would do. This requires more work but seems more efficient. I'm not averse to coding some utility classes or doing some reflection/custom annotation work if needed.
My question is which of these approaches seems best? Alternatively, you might have a better suggestion, or notice I'm missing something; for example, maybe there's a way to add a type column even with TABLE_PER_CLASS inheritance to point JPA to the right table? Perhaps you've tried something like this and want to warn me about numerous issues that would arise.
Some additional info:
We create the database schema, so we can add whatever we want.
A single table inheritance strategy isn't an option. The tables must remain distinct. For the same reason, joined inheritance doesn't seem a good fit either.
The JPA provider is Hibernate and using things that are not part of the JPA standard isn't an issue.
If the entities don't have anything in common besides having a uuid I'd use the second approach you describe: use MappedSuperclass. Making the common superclass an entity would prevent you to use a different inheritance strategy if needed, would require a table for that super entity even if no instances exist and from a business point of view it's just wrong.
The link itself could be implemented in multiple ways, e.g. you could subclass MutationEntityLink for each entity to map (e.g. CustomerMutationEntityLink etc.) or do as you described it, i.e. only store the uuid as well as some discriminator/type information and resolve programatically (we're using that approach for something similar btw.).
You need to use #MappedSuperclass while inheriting associations/methods/properties whereas TABLE_PER_CLASS is generally used when you have entity and sub-entities. If there are entities having an association with the base class in the model, then use TABLE_PER_CLASS since the base class behaves like an entity. Otherwise, since the base class would include properties/attributes and methods which are general to such entities not related to each other, using #MappedSuperclass would be a better idea
Example1: You need to set alarms for some different activities like "take medicine", "call mom", "go to doctor" etc. The content of the alarm message does not matter, you will need a reminder. So use TABLE_PER_CLASS since alarm message, which is your base class is like an entity here.
Example2: Assume the base class AbstractDomainObject enables you to create login ID, loginName, creation/modification date for each object where no entity has an association with the base class, you will need to specify the association for the sake of clearing later, like "Company","University" etc. In this situation, using #MappedSuperclass would be better.
Why is #ForceDiscriminator or its equivalent #DiscriminatorOptions(force=true) necessary in some cases of inheritance and polymorphic associations? It seems to be the only way to get the job done. Are there any reasons not to use it?
As I'm running over this again and again, I think it might help to clarify:
First, it is true that Hibernate does not require discrimination when using JOINED_TABLE mapping. However, it does require it when using SINGLE_TABLE. Even more importantly, other JPA providers mostly do require it.
What Hibernate actually does when performing a polymorphic JOINED_TABLE query is to create a discriminator named clazz on the fly, using a case-switch that checks for the presence of fields unique for concrete subclasses after outer-joining all tables involved in the inheritance-tree. You can clearly see this when including the "hibernate.show_sql" property in your persistence.xml. In my view this is probably the perfect solution for JOINED_TABLE queries, so the Hibernate folks are right to brag about it.
The matter is somewhat different when performing updates and deletes; here hibernate first queries your root-table for any keys that match the statement's where clause, and creates a virtual pkTable from the result. Then it performs a "DELETE FROM / UPDATE table WHERE pk IN pkTable" for any concrete class withing your inheritance tree; the IN operator causes an O(log(N)) subquery per table entry scanned, but it is likely in-memory, so it's not too bad from a performance perspective.
To answer your specific question, Hibernate simply doesn't see a problem here, and from a certain perspective they are correct. It would be incredibly easy for them to simply honour the #DiscriminatorValue annotations by injecting the discriminator values during entityManager.persist(), even if they do not actually use them. However, not honoring the discriminator column in JOINED_TABLE has the advantage (for Hibernate) to create a mild case of vendor lockin, and it is even defensible by pointing to superior technology.
#ForceDiscriminator or #DiscriminatorOptions(force=true) sure help to mitigate the pain a little, but you have to use them before the first entities are created, or be forced to manually add the missing discriminator values using SQL statements. If you dare to move away from Hibernate it at least costs you some code change to remove these Hibernate specific annotations, creating resistance against the migration. And that is obviously all that Hibernate cares about in this case.
In my experience, vendor lockin is the paradise every market leader's wildest dreams are about, because it is the machiavellian magic wand that protects market share without effort; it is therefore done whenever customers do not fight back and force a price upon the vendor that is higher than the benefits reaped. Who said that an Open Source world would be any different?
p.s, just to avoid any confusion: I am in no way affiliated to any JPA implementor.
p.p.s: What I usually do is ignore the problem until migration time; you can then formulate an SQL UPDATE ... FROM statement using the same case-switch-with-outer-joins trick Hibernate uses to fill in the missing discriminator values. It's actually quite easy once you have understood the basic principle.
Guys let me try to explain about #DiscriminatorOptions(Force=true).
Well , it is used in single table inheritence, i have recently used this in one of the scenario.
i have two entities which was mapped to single table. when i was trying to fetch the record for one entity i was getting list of result containg records from both the entities and this was my problem. To solve this problem i have used #DiscriminatorOptions(Force=true) which will create the predicate using Discriminator column with the specified value mapped to the corresponding entity.
so the query will be look like this after i used #DiscriminatorOptions(Force=true)
select *
from TABLE
where YOUR PREDICATE AND DiscriminatorColumn = DiscriminatorValue
I think this is more of my opinion but I think some will agree with me. I prefer the fact that Hibernate enables you to not use a discriminator. In several cases the discriminator isn't necessary.
For example, I have a Person entity which contains stuff like a name, a date of birth, etc. This entity can be used by several other entities like Employee or Customer. When I don't reference Person from other entities, but reference Employee or Customer instead, the discriminator isn't used as Hibernate is instructed to fetch either one.
#yannisf ForceDiscriminator is not the only solution to solve this issue.
You can do instanceof tests for each child class. Though this will be like hardcoding your classes in your code but is a cleaner way to solve the problem if the discriminator column is not populated.
This also helps your code avoid mixing jpa and hibernate annotations.
As pointed out by yannisf, instanceOf is kind of an antipattern in the OO world.
Another solution could be changing your entity mapping. Suppose an entity A has a refernce to a superclass B and B has child classes of type C1 and C2, the instead of A pointing to B, you can have C1 and C2 have a foreign key pointing to A. It all comes down to changing the entity design so as not to mix annotations.
Thanks
Vaibhav
I am using JPA 2 for an enterprise application, and my DBA's just hit me with a twist.
They want me to use the group's centralized object ID generator for all my tables. This means rather than using table values or a sequence table, I will need to call a web service to get a batch of ~50 ids.
Then, as I persist any new object, I would need to inject this id first, and save that to the table.
So how would I manipulate the #Id column of an entity to handle this.
Is it as simple as setting a key before I persist? I suspect that would throw some sort of unmanaged entity with ID set error.
Update:
The better method is to actually specify a Sequence strategy on Generated fields and specify a custom Sequence class.
JPA will then call this class's nextId() method every time it inserts a new object.
This method allows full graphs to be persisted without intervening on each entity manually.
Figured it out. Amazingly complex ;) - just remove the GeneratedValue annotation from the key field.
It is intended for Native Ids like SSN or email, but works regardless of source.
#Entity
public class Client{
#Id
#Column(name="CLNT_ID")
private long key;
#Column(name="CLNT_NUM")
private String clientNumber;
...
}