I am trying to model such situation - there is a cash transfer (I mean a car that carries money), that has required amounts of each currency, and also an actual amount for each currency. And it seems to me pointless to create two separate classes, one for required amount and another for actual amount. So the implementation would look like this:
#Entity
public class CashTransferCurrencyAmount {
// id, version and so on
#Column(length = 3)
private String currencyCode;
#Basic
private BigDecimal amount;
#ManyToOne
private CashTransfer cashTransfer;
}
#Entity
public class CashTransfer {
// id, version and so on
#OneToMany(mappedBy="cashTransfer")
private Set<CashTransferCurrencyAmount> requiredCurrencyAmountSet = new HashSet<CashTransferAmountCurrency>();
#OneToMany(mappedBy="cashTransfer")
private Set<CashTransferCurrencyAmount> actualCurrencyAmountSet = new HashSet<CashTransferAmountCurrency>();
}
But how is a CashTransferCurrencyAmount instance to know to which collection it belongs? I have two ideas:
1 - add a discriminator field to CashTransferCurrencyAmount:
public enum RequestType {
ACTUAL,
REQUIRED
}
#Basic
#Enumerated(EnumType.STRING)
private RequestType requestType;
and add #WHERE annotations to collections in CashTransfer. This is preferable for me.
2 - create two join tables. one for mapping requested amounts and one for mapping actual amounts. I dislike this one as I don't want too many tables in my DB.
Are there any other ways to achieve this? I this approach correct?
And please don't tell me to put both requested and actual amounts in one entity. The real case is more complicated, each CashTransferCurrencyAmount has it's own collections so it can't be solved that way.
EDIT
As for requests for complete story - there used to be two values in CashTransferCurrencyAmount - required (I think it should be 'requested') and actual, but now each amount has it's own collection - how this amount is split into denominations. So I need a collection of amounts, each one having a collection of denominations. The type of CurrencyAmount and CurencyDenomination seems to be the same for requested ones and for actual ones.
Since you want CashTransferCurrencyAmount instance to know which collection it belongs to, I assume you want to have some logic based on that. The way I would model your situation would be using inheritance.
You're saying "it seems to me pointless to create two separate classes", I would however try to convince you that you should. You could use a "Single Table" inheritance type, so that you don't introduce additional tables in your DB, which is what you're trying to accomplish.
My shot would look something like:
#Entity
#Inheritance(strategy = InheritanceType.SINGLE_TABLE)
#DiscriminatorColumn(name = "request_type", discriminatorType = DiscriminatorType.STRING)
public abstract class CashTransferCurrencyAmount {
// id, version and so on
#Column(length = 3)
private String currencyCode;
#Basic
private BigDecimal amount;
#ManyToOne
private CashTransfer cashTransfer;
}
#Entity
#DiscriminatorValue("REQUIRED")
public class CashTransferCurrencyAmountRequired extends CashTransferCurrencyAmount {
// required anount specific stuff here
}
#Entity
#DiscriminatorValue("ACTUAL")
public class CashTransferCurrencyAmountActual extends CashTransferCurrencyAmount {
// actual anount specific stuff here
}
#Entity
public class CashTransfer {
// id, version and so on
#OneToMany(mappedBy="cashTransfer")
private Set requiredCurrencyAmountSet = new HashSet();
//Stackoverflow deleting my generic sets! But it's exactly the same as in your code...
#OneToMany(mappedBy="cashTransfer")
private Set actualCurrencyAmountSet = new HashSet();
}
Related
I'm struggling to write this, so I may have to give an example to help explain the problem I'm experiencing.
Say we have nodes of three types (these nodes may have more relationships of their own, e.g. Product Family, has product manager):
Product
Product Family
Battery
With these relationships
A product can be be in 0 or more families
A product can have 0 or more batteries.
When using spring-data-neo4j and saving a new Product, I wish to include these relatiopnships, such as the batteries they require and the product family they belong to. However if I only supply say an ID rather then a fully populated object, it overwrites this object along with properties and relations accordingly.
This isn't great as it means that I have to end up sending a fully populated object, with all it's relations everytime I wish to save something, and some of these relations may go quite deep.
My domain is as follows:
#Node
public class Product {
#Id
#GeneratedValue(generatorClass = SnowflakeGenerator.class)
private Long productId;
private String name;
#Relationship(type = "REQUIRES_BATTERY", direction = OUTGOING)
private List<Battery> batteryList;
#Relationship(type = "IN_FAMILY", direction = OUTGOING)
private List<ProductFamily> productFamilyList;
}
#Node
public class Battery {
#Id
#GeneratedValue(generatorClass = SnowflakeGenerator.class)
private Long batteryId;
private String name;
}
#Node
public class ProductFamily {
#Id
#GeneratedValue(generatorClass = SnowflakeGenerator.class)
private Long familyId;
private String name;
}
This could very well by from coming from a Relational Database mindset and is a 'limitation' of using Neo4J.
TLDR When persisting somethign in Neo4J using spring-data how can I save just a relationship, rather than a whole related Node.
You can make use of projections in Spring Data Neo4j. (https://docs.spring.io/spring-data/neo4j/docs/current/reference/html/#projections)
This gives you the option to put a "mask" on the object tree, you want to persist (and what should stay untouched).
For example in your case:
interface ProductProjection {
// without defining e.g. String getName() here, SDN would not ever touch this property.
List<BatteryProjection> getBatteryList();
List<ProductFamilyProjection> getProductFamilyList();
}
interface BatteryProjection {
String getName();
}
interface ProductFamilyProjection {
String getName();
}
I use crnk (JSON-API) in java project and I have 3 questions regarding its usage with spring boot and jpa - haven't found exact implementation details in documentation.
For example, I have 2 entities and respective tables:
#Entity
#JsonApiResource(type = "employee")
public class Employee {
#Id
#JsonApiId
private int id;
private String name;
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "typeId")
private EmployeeType employeeType; //stored in table as typeId
}
#Entity
#JsonApiResource(type = "type")
public class EmployeeType {
#Id
#JsonApiId
private int id;
private String typeName;
private int salary;
}
How should JsonApiRelation be introduced in order to be able to call "/employee/1" and "/employee/1/type" urls?
For example there is one more entity.
#Entity
#JsonApiResource(type = "project")
public class Project {
#Id
#JsonApiId
private int id;
private String supervisorName;
private String projectName;
}
First, I'd like to have List of Projects for each Employee, where he is a supervisor, joint by name and have it listed as attribute in Json.
Tried implementing it with #OneToMany and #JoinColumn annotations but got StackOverflowException. How could this be implemented. And second, how could this be implemented with Relation? Like "/employee/1/projects" url.
How should I implement custom filtering of results for findAll method? For example, I have a List of all Employees, but I'd like to exclude some of them from the response. Which class/method should be introduced for this behaviour?
#JsonApiRelation annotation should not be necessary. Crnk will detect the #ManyToOne annotation and map it accordingly.
in case of crnk-jpa it is sufficient to specify all relationships in JPA. Matching JSON API relationships. So your approach seems good. What was the StackoverflowException stacktrace? (next to the examples, there are also many example entities in crnk-jpa)
I would make use of a decorator. See http://www.crnk.io/documentation/#_request_filtering. RepositoryDecoratorFactory allows to place a custom repository between the caller and crnk-jpa (or any other kind of repository). There you can do any kind of modification perform (maybe) calling the "real" repository. => Will add an example for this
feel free also make open up tickets in crnk for any documentation/example clarifications.
I am trying to map a single java class to two identical views depends on the value of a field in this class:
here is my java class:
#Entity
#Immutable
#Table(name = "VIEW_ACCOUNT_PERMISSION")
public class AccountPermission implements Serializable {
#Id
#Column(name = "PERMISSION_ID")
private String id;
#Column(name = "ACCOUNT_ID")
private Long accountId;
#Column(name = "OBJECT_TYPE_ID")
#Type(type = "refObjectType")
private RefObjectType objectType;
// getters and setters
}
right now it mapped to just one view ("VIEW_ACCOUNT_PERMISSION"). Not to mention the OBJECT_TYPE_ID field can be 1,2 or 3.
Now I want to create another view the same as the "VIEW_ACCOUNT_PERMISSION" lets say "VIEW_ACCOUNT_PERMISSION2" which will have the records with OBJECT_TYPE_ID equals to 3 (1 and 2 will stay in the old view).
I can create another java model and map it to the new view but I don't like that. Is there any way to use single java model and then maps it (discriminate probably) to two views based on the value of objectType ?
You can search on basis of entity names. One Hibernate pojo class can denote to multiple entity names with different tables.
I am trying to use an inner class as embeddable to represent some complicated properties of the outer class. When I store this, there is no information from the inner class in the database schema generated by eclipselink.
Does what I'm trying to do seem like a good idea? Why doesn't eclipselink seem to recognize them #Basic attribute on the getRate() in Attributes?
Some other info: Measure must be instantiated using a factory which is provided to the constructor of Person, so I don't even know how I'm going to be able to use this at all. It seems more and more likely that I'll have to make a separate class just to store the state of Person in simple terms (like doubles, not Measures) and use those to create the real Person-type objects, but that has very sad implications for the rest of my application.
#Entity
public static class Person {
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.AUTO)
private int id;
#Transient
public Measure<Double, CleanupRate> rate;
#Embedded
private Attributes attributes;
#Embeddable
public static class Attributes {
#Transient
private Person person;
public Attributes() {
}
public Attributes(Person person) {
this.person = person;
}
#Basic
public double getRate() {
return person.rate.getInternalValue();
}
public void setRate(double value) {
person.rate.setInternalValue(value);
}
}
public Person() {
rate = udm.getMeasureFactory().createMeasure(0.0, CleanupRate.class);
attributes = new Attributes(this);
}
public void setRate(double rate) {
this.rate.setValue(rate);
}
}
Edit:
In order to inject the measure dependency into my objects when they are retrieved from storage, I've added an interface which injects the dependency and used it in my DAO. Since the DAO can be injected, I can propagate the dependency down to the retrieved objects. I got the idea from a blog.
private <T extends UomInjectable> List<T> //
getListOfUomInjectableType(final Class<T> klass) {
List<T> result = getListOfType(klass);
for (UomInjectable injectable : result) {
injectable.injectUomFactory(udm);
}
return result;
}
It is using the access type from the Person class, which is set to field, and so not seeing the annotation at the property level.
You will need to change the access type using Access(PROPERTY) on the embeddable class, and should remove the #Transient annotation on the person attribute.
I think in general you're going to be in trouble having Entities (Embeddable or otherwise) that need constructors with arguments. I'm not sure how that might be related to your schema generation issue, but I think this will be a problem trying to persist/retrieve these objects.
As you hinted, JPA requires all entity types to have a no-argument constructor. While your Attributes class has one, it leaves the 'person' field as null which will fairly quickly result in NPE's. Same with the Person constructor (maybe you left out the one that passes in 'udm' from the sample code?).
The set the Person for the Attributes, just use property access in Person and set it in your setAttributes method.
See,
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Java_Persistence/Embeddables#Relationships
Is it possible to store something like the following using only one table? Right now, what hibernate will do is create two tables, one for Families and one for people. I would like for the familymembers object to be serialized into the column in the database.
#Entity(name = "family")
class Family{
private final List<Person> familyMembers;
}
class Person{
String firstName, lastName;
int age;
}
This is an horrible design and I'm really not recommending it (you should just create another table) but it is possible.
First, you'll need to use a byte[] attribute to hold a serialized version of the list of persons that will be stored in a BLOB in the database. So annotate it's getter with #Lob (I would make the getter and setter private to not expose them). Then, expose "fake" getter and setter to return or set a List<Person> from the byte[]. I'm using SerializationUtils from Commons Lang in the sample below (provide you own helper class if you don't want to import this library) to serialize/deserialize on the fly to/from the byte[]. Don't forget to mark the "fake" getter with #Transcient or Hibernate will try to create a field (and fail because it won't be able to determine the type for a List).
#Entity(name = "family")
class Family implements Serializable {
// ...
private byte[] familyMembersAsByteArray;
public Family() {}
#Lob
#Column(name = "members", length = Integer.MAX_VALUE - 1)
private byte[] getFamilyMembersAsByteArray() { // not exposed
return familyMembersAsByteArray;
}
private void setFamilyMembersAsByteArray((byte[] familyMembersAsByteArray() { // not exposed
this.familyMembersAsByteArray = familyMembersAsByteArray;
}
#Transient
public List<Person> getFamilyMembers() {
return (List<Person>) SerializationUtils.deserialize(familyMembersAsByteArray);
}
public void setParticipants(List familyMembers) {
this.familyMembersAsByteArray = SerializationUtils.serialize((Serializable) familyMembers);
}
}
Don't forget to make the Person class Serializable and to add a real serialVersionUID (I'm just showing a default here):
public class Person implements Serializable {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
// ...
private String firstName, lastName;
private int age;
}
But, let me insist, this is an horrible design and it will be very fragile (changing Person might require to "migrate" the content of the BLOB to avoid deserialization issues and this will become painful. You should really reconsider this idea and use another table for the Person instead (or I don't get why you use a database).
#Type(type = "serializable")
private List<Person> familyMembers;
if you can't use hibernate annotations try this:
#Lob
private Serializable familyMembers;
public List<Person> getFamilyMembers(){
return (List) familyMembers;
}
public void setFamilyMembers(List<Person> family){
familyMembers = family;
}
Annotate the property with #Column and define the type to be ArrayList, not just List. And make Person implement Serializable.
But you should do this only if your motives are very clear, because this is the correct solution in some very rare cases. As Pascal noted, if you ever have to change Person you'll have headaches.
You can create pseudoproperty (getter and setter) which accepts/returns the serialized form, and annotate the familyMembers with #Transient. This would also need to annotate the getters, not fields, for all other properties.