We Keep Coding

JPA Repository Inheritance - Extend Multiple Interfaces

My JPA repositories extend a custom interface that carries annotations for handling authorization in a generic way.
public interface MultiTenantCrudRepo<T, ID> extends CrudRepository<T, ID>
This interface adds #PreAuthorize, #PostAuthorize, #PreFilter and #PostFilter annotations to the methods of CrudRepository.
Further, for some entities, I have the need to implement soft deletion. For this purpose, I created a "SoftDeleteRepository" like this:
public interface SoftDeleteRepository<T extends BaseEntity<I> & SoftDeletable, I extends Serializable> extends CrudRepository<T, I> {
#Query("update #{#entityName} e set e.isDeleted = true where e.id = ?#{#entity.id}")
#Modifying
#Override
public void delete(#Param("entity") T entity);
You can see it adds #Query annotations to implement the functionality I need.
Both interfaces work independently as expected, but when a repository required both attributes (authorization and soft deletion) like this
public interface FooRepo extends SoftDeleteRepository<Foo, Long>, MultiTenantCrudRepo<Foo, Long> {
it seems like only the annotations of the first interface after "extends" are effective. So in this case, I get a FooRepo that supports soft delection but without authorization validation.
What is the best way to get both to work?

Guess that it is a tricky thing to do because it actually would be multi inheritance thing which Java does not support, for example see this.
What would be chosen if there were two of the same annotations with different parameters, for example?
Many frameworks - like Spring data - do just fine when checking for inheritance of annotations but guess only if there is no multi-inheritance and/or with same annotations. These frameworks might use reflection to go up on the "implements tree" but might choose only one path because of the above or if well implemented throw an exception.
Because of this I am afraid you need to do something like:
public interface SoftDeleteMultitenantRepository
extends MultiTenantCrudRepo<Foo, Long> {
// a copy of your soft delete method here
}

Is Factory method more suitable for frameworks and Abstract facory for Library?

Both Abstract Factory and Factory method patterns are creational design patterns which solves the object creation issues in different scenarios.
As per GOF Factory Method pattern
Define an interface for creating an object, but let the subclasses decide which class to instantiate. Factory method lets a class defer instantiation to subclass.
My Understanding :
Motive of the Client is to get a method present in the base Factory class get executed which is dependent upon an object whose concrete class is not known now (In such a case, either during providing the software to client, it will be defined, or it will be the client himself writing the concrete implementation, most likely in case of Framework). The not known (or likely to change) Product is provided an abstract type : IProduct, and setting a contract that in future any implementation for Product must implement this interface.
IProduct interface
package com.companyx;
public interface IProduct {
public void serve();
}
Factory class with 'a method' which needs to be executed
package com.companyx;
public abstract class Factory {
public abstract IProduct createProduct();
private void performCriticalJob(){
IProduct product = createProduct();
product.serve();
}
public void executeJob(){
//some code
performCriticalJob();
//some more code
}
}
Some concrete Product
package com.companyx;
class AppAProductFeatureX implements IProduct{
#Override
public void serve() {
//some code
}
}
Factory of the concrete Product
package com.companyx;
public class AppAFeatureXProductFactory extends Factory{
#Override
public IProduct createProduct() {
return new AppAProductFeatureX();
}
}
Client code
package com.clientcompany;
import com.companyx.AppAFeatureXProductFactory;
import com.companyx.Factory;
public class Client {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Factory fact = new AppAFeatureXProductFactory();
fact.executeJob();
}
}
As per GOF Abstract Factory pattern
Provide an interface for creating families of related or dependent objects without specifying their concrete classes.
My Understanding
The client is interested in the products, here this pattern helps in providing the product by hiding the concrete product classes behind factory classes.
Product type wanted by the client
package com.companyb;
public interface IProductA {
public void performAJob();
}
Implementation of the product
package com.companyb;
//can be named better, but lets go with this name for this time
public class ProductAVersion1 implements IProductA{
#Override
public void performAJob() {
// some code
}
}
Factory interface, (It can be also an abstract class)
package com.companyb;
public interface IFactory {
public IProductA createProduct();
}
Concrete implementation of Factory o create ProductA
package com.companyb;
public class FactoryA implements IFactory{
#Override
public IProductA createProduct() {
return new ProductAVersion1(); // concrete class of product is hidden
}
}
Client Code
package com.clientcompany.productprovider;
import com.companyb.IFactory;
import com.companyb.IProductA;
public class SomeClientClass {
private IFactory factory;
private IProductA product;
public void doSomeJobWithProductA() {
// some code
product.performAJob();
//someCode();
}
public void setFactory(IFactory factory) {
this.factory = factory;
this.product = factory.createProduct();
}
}
package com.clientcompany.productprovider;
import com.companyb.FactoryA;
public class SomeOtherClientCode {
public static void main(String[] args) {
SomeClientClass someClientClass = new SomeClientClass();
someClientClass.setFactory(new FactoryA());
someClientClass.doSomeJobWithProductA();
}
}
Q1 : Is the family of related product necessary in Abstract Factory patter , won't this pattern still be relevant if only one kind of product (like above) is there with various sub types but not various related types?
Q2 Is my understanding above correct ?
Q3 Above brings another doubt in my mind : Is Factory method more suitable for frameworks (where client can give the implementation of products) and just like template method pattern, factory invokes the createProduct() concrete implementation form the user provided Concrete Factory implementation ?
Also similarly is Abstract factory more fits for Library development, where concrete product classes (likely to vary) are hidden behind more stable Factory classes ?

I am having real difficulty in getting into your shoes. But I am quite interested in this subject so I will give a try. Involved here are concepts like library, framework, factory method, abstract factory and product family etc.
First, the library vs framework has really nothing to do with factory, abstract factory or any pattern for that matter. Library vs framework debate is not from implementational perspective where the patterns play. For example JUnit is a framework which comes with a rich assertion library. So should junit prefer one pattern over other for its internal implementation? Java itself is a framework which comes with a JCL library. Dot Net which is similar to java even calls itself a framework, and contains BCL library. So no more framework vs library debate in implementational context.
So the question boils down to which pattern should you use? It is not about the difference, which is clear, but about which one to use in which scenario. In this context, the Client Code is all code which may call the one which you are typing right now. It does not matter whether some code is written by you or someone else, in same or different jar, from same or different organization. From perspective of one code fragment, any other code (even in different method of the same class) is client code if that code has a potential to call the code which you are typing right now.
While typing any code (irrespective of framework or library status) sometimes we need to obtain instances of some object. May be we need a BufferedReader. If at compile time we are absolute sure about the concrete class of the object, KISS it and go with newing.
We may not know the concrete class of an instance. Now question aries whether the client code has this information? If the client code knows about the actual concrete class, but I do not know then we use the FactoryMethod pattern. The code I am typing will ask for an instance of a factory object in (say) its argument list. The client code knowing the actual concrete class, will supply a factory object which will do the creation. Example of this case is seen in JDBC like we want to process an sql statement. At compile time we do not know whether we should instantiate a mysql.JDBC4PreparedStatement or a microsoft.SQLServerStatement. It depends on connection string and that depends on end user. So we get hold of a Connection instance and ask it to createStatement(). See, we are delegating the construction of an object of type sql.Statement to a subclass of sql.Connection. Here the conn instance is the factory object. How we get hold of the factory is immaterial, just that we got it from client code.
If we need an instance of a Process object and at compile time we do not know whether it will be a Win32Process or a UnixProcess, we delegate the responsibility of its creation to ProcessBuilder which is builder pattern related to factory pattern. Same goes for jdbc ConnectionManager.
In case when there are many different classes not related by inheritance but by family we may use AbstractFactory. For example take jdbc's dot net counterpart DbProviderFactory. My code needs instances of Connection, Command, DataReader etc which are not related by inheritance but by family of MySql or SqlServer. So we get hold of an instance of a subclass of DbProviderFactory. May be it is a MySqlProviderFactory or a SqlProviderFactory that depends on runtime and client code. Once we have that factory, we can do CreateCommand(), CreateConnection() etc.
Hope this helps you choose between factory pattern and abstract factory pattern.

In my understanding:
A1: The family of product does not need to be necessarily related, as shown on an example diagram, only a Client is needed that has knowledge of the type of products. The relation is mostly natural as you probably don't want the same Client to create 2 unrelated objects, e.g., it would look strange if you have an "AbstractPizzaFactory" that creates Pizza and Cars, no?
A2: Technically you can provide a default factory method in the Factory pattern, so that you can still create (defaults) new Objects without always subclassing it.
A3: I would agree with you on this point, although creating a Library or a Framework is never black and white.

Abstract Factory can be seen as collection of the Factory Methods.
For better understanding examples from real life can help:
Factory Method - plasticine/mold
Abstract Factory - cards factory

How can I add my own EnumValueMapperSupport

I'm trying to persist some enums in Hibernate and it looks like my two options for built in support are to use the name of the enum, which I would rather not do because it's string based instead of int based, or the ordinal of the enum, which I would rather not do because if I add one of the enum values at the top of the class later on, I break everything down the line.
Instead, I have an interface called Identifiable that has public int getId() as part of its contract. This way, the enums I want to persist can implement Identifable and I can know that they'll define their own id.
But when I try to extend EnumValueMapperSupport so I can utilize this functionality, I'm greeted with errors from the compiler because the EnumValueMapper interface and the EnumValueMapperSupport class are not static, and thus are expected to be locked into a given EnumType object.
How can I extend this functionality in Hibernate, short of rewriting a bunch of Hibernate code and submitting a patch. If I can't, is there another way to somehow store an enum based on something other than the ordinal or name, but instead on your own code?
In a related thought, has anyone personally been down this road and decided "let's see how bad the name mapping is" and just went with name mapping because it wasn't that much worse performance? Like, is it possible I'm prematurely optimizing here?
I'm working against Hibernate version 5.0.2-final.

At least for Hibernate 4.3.5 the EnumValueMapper is static - although private.
But you can extend EnumValueMapperSupport in an extension of EnumType:
public class ExampleEnumType extends EnumType {
public class ExampleMapper extends EnumValueMapperSupport {
...
}
}
To create an instance of this mapper you need an instance of your EnumType:
ExampleEnumType type = new ExampleEnumType();
ExampleMapper mapper = type.new ExampleMapper();
Or you create it inside your type:
public class ExampleEnumType extends EnumType {
public class ExampleMapper extends EnumValueMapperSupport {
...
}
public ExampleMapper createMapper() {
return new ExampleMapper();
}
}

DAO design pattern

So lets say we have a couple of entities we want to persist using DAO objects. So we implement the right interface so we end up with
class JdbcUserDao implements UserDao{
//...
}
class JdbcAddressDao implements AddressDao{
//...
}
So if I want to be able to switch persistance implementations from JDBC to JPA (for example) and vice versa, I'd need to have JPAUserDao and JPAAddressDao... Meaning if I had 20 entities, and decided to switch implementations(using DI container), I'd have to switch every Jdbc implementation with JPA in code.
Now it could be that I misunderstood how DAO works, but... If I just had
class JdbcDaoImpl implements UserDao,AddressDao{
//...
}
I'd then have all the JDBC implementations in one class, and switching implementations would be a piece of cake. Also, DaoImpl count is equal to number of Dao interfaces. Why not just group them by implementation (jdbc, JTA, JPA...) and have everything under one class?
Thanks in advance.

Having a single class implement every DAO interface in your entire application would be a rather bad design.
A more typical pattern is to have a BaseDAO interface (also often called GenericDAO) and have a JPABaseDAO, JDBCBaseDAO etc. These base classes will contain methods like find/get/read, save/store/persist, update/modify and delete/remove/purge.
Specific DAO interfaces like UserDAO then inherit from BaseDAO and concrete implementations like JPAUserDAO extends from JPABaseDAO.
A BaseDAO interface could look like this:
public interface BaseDAO <T> {
T getByID(Long ID);
T save(T type);
T update(T type);
void delete(T type);
}
And a UserDAO interface:
public interface UserDAO extends BaseDAO<User> {
List<User> getAllAuthorized();
}
Bare bones example of a JPABaseDAO implementing this interface:
#Stateless
public class JPABaseDAO<T> implements BaseDAO<T> {
#PersistenceContext
private EntityManager entityManager;
private final Class<T> entityType;
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public JPABaseDAO() {
this.entityType = ((Class<T>) ((ParameterizedType) getClass().getGenericSuperclass()).getActualTypeArguments()[0]);
}
#Override
public T getByID(Long ID) {
return entityManager.find(entityType, ID);
}
#Override
public T save(T type) {
return entityManager.persist(type);
}
#Override
public T update(T type) {
return entityManager.merge(type);
}
#Override
public void delete(T type) {
entityManager.remove(entityManager.contains(type) ? type : entityManager.merge(type));
}
}
And some sample UserDAO implementation that would inherit from it:
#Stateless
public class JPAUserDAO extends JPABaseDAO<User> implements UserDAO {
#PersistenceContext
private EntityManager entityManager;
#Override
public List<User> getAllAuthorized() {
return entityManager.createNamedQuery("User.getAllAuthorized", User.class)
.getResultList();
}
}
In practice the base class can often do some other things transparently, for instance checking if an entity implements some kind of Auditable interface, and automatically setting the date and user that modified it, etc.
When using EJB to implement your DAOs, one strategy to change implementations would be to put all JDBC implementations in one package and all JPA implementations in the other. Then just include only one implementation package in your build.

The whole point of Dependency Injection is to make switching between implementation easier and to decouple the user from the provider. Hence all DI frameworks provide some way to "group" several implementations (here your JDBC-group and your JPA-group) and switch them in one place.
Also: Usually the number of consumers (in your case: some business logic working on users and addresses) is usually higher than the number of DAOs the DI framework will uncouple most of the stuff for you anyway. Assume: 50 business beans, two interfaces and two implementations for each interface (4 total): even basic DI will take care for the 50. Using grouping will halve that remaining rest for you.

There are definitely possibilities to implement the DAO pattern in a widely technology agnostic way such that switching persistence technology or even mixing multiple technologies becomes feasible. This article presents one implementation scheme including source code on github.
http://codeblock.engio.net/?p=180

Force Singleton Pattern on a Class implementing an Interface

I better explain the question with an example.
I have an Interface Model which can be used to access data.
There can be different implementations of Model which can represent the data in various format say XMl , txt format etc. Model is not concerned with the formats.
Lets say one such implementation is myxmlModel.
Now i want to force myxmlModel and every other implementation of Model to follow Singleton Pattern.The usual way is to make myxmlModels constructor private and provide a static factory method to return an instance of myModel class.But the problem is interface cannot have static method definitions and a result i cannot enforce a particular Factory method definition on all implementation of Model. So one implementation may end with providing getObject() and other may have getNewModel()..
One work around is to allow package access to myxmlModel's constructor and create a Factory class which creates the myxmlModel object and cache it for further use.
I was wondering if there is a better way to achieve the same functionality .

Make a factory that returns
instances of your interface, Model.
Make all concrete implementations of the model package-private classes
in the same package as your factory.
If your model is to be a singleton, and you are using java
5+, use enum instead of traditional
singleton, as it is safer.
public enum MyXMLModel{
INSTANCE();
//rest of class
};
EDIT:
Another possibility is to create delegate classes that do all the work and then use an enum to provide all of the Model Options.
for instance:
class MyXMLModelDelegate implements Model {
public void foo() { /*does foo*/}
...
}
class MyJSONModelDelegate implements Model {
public void foo() { /*does foo*/ }
...
}
public enum Models {
XML(new MyXMLModelDelgate()),
JSON(new MyJSONModelDelegate());
private Model delegate;
public Models(Model delegate) { this.delegate=delegate; }
public void foo() { delegate.foo(); }
}

You can use reflection. Something like this:
public interface Model {
class Singleton {
public static Model instance(Class<? extends Model> modelClass) {
try {
return (Model)modelClass.getField("instance").get(null);
} catch (blah-blah) {
blah-blah
}
}
}
public class XmlModel implements Model {
private static final Model instance = new XmlModel();
private XmlModel() {
}
}
usage:
Model.Singleton.instance(XmlModel.class)
Actually, I don't like this code much :). First, it uses reflection - very slow, second - there are possibilities of runtime errors in case of wrong definitions of classes.

Can you refactor the interface to be an abstract class? This will allow you to force a particular factory method down to all implementing classes.

I used to ask myself the same question. And I proposed the same answer ;-)
Now I normally drop the "forcing" behavior, I rely on documentation.
I found no case where the Singleton aspect was so compelling that it needed to be enforced by all means.
It is just a "best-practice" for the project.
I usually use Spring to instanciate such an object,
and it is the Spring configuration that makes it a Singleton.
Safe, and so easy ... plus additionnal Spring advantages (such as Proxying, substituing a different object once to make some tests etc...)

This is more an answer to your comment/clarification to kts's answer. Is it so, that the real problem is not using the Singleton pattern but instead defining an eclipse (equinox) extension point schema that allows contributing a singleton?
I think, this can't be done, because everytime you call IConfigurationElement.createExecutableExtension you create a new instance. This is quite incompatible with your singleton requirement. And therefore you need the public default constructor so that everybody can create instances.
Unless you can change the extension point definition so that plugins contribute a ModelFactory rather than a model, like
public interface ModelFactory {
public Model getModelInstance();
}
So the extension user will instantiate a ModelFactory and use it to obtain the singleton.
If I guessed wrong, leave a comment and I delete the answer ;)