I need to allow client users to extend the data contained by a JPA entity at runtime. In other words I need to add a virtual column to the entity table at runtime. This virtual column will only be applicable to certain data rows and there could possibly be quite a few of these virtual columns. As such I don't want to create an actual additional column in the database, but rather I want to make use of additional entities that represent these virtual columns.
As an example, consider the following situation. I have a Company entity which has a field labelled Owner, which contains a reference to the Owner of the Company. At runtime a client user decides that all Companies that belong to a specific Owner should have the extra field labelled ContactDetails.
My preliminary design uses two additional entities to accomplish this. The first basically represents the virtual column and contains information such as the field name and type of value expected. The other represents the actual data and connects an entity row to a virtual column. For example, the first entity might contain the data "ContactDetails" while the second entity contains say "555-5555."
Is this the right way to go about doing this? Is there a better alternative? Also, what would be the easiest way to automatically load this data when the original entity is loaded? I want my DAO call to return the entity together with its extensions.
EDIT: I changed the example from a field labelled Type which could be a Partner or a Customer to the present version as it was confusing.
Perhaps a simpler alternative could be to add a CLOB column to each Company and store the extensions as an XML. There is a different set of tradeoffs here compared to your solution but as long as the extra data doesn't need to be SQL accessible (no indexes, fkeys and so on) it will probably be simple than what you do now.
It also means that if you have some fancy logic regarding the extra data you would need to implement it differently. For example if you need a list of all possible extension types you would have to maintain it separately. Or if you need searching capabilities (find customer by phone number) you will require lucene or similar solution.
I can elaborate more if you are interested.
EDIT:
To enable searching you would want something like lucene which is a great engine for doing free text search on arbitrary data. There is also hibernate-search which integrates lucene directly with hibernate using annotations and such - I haven't used it but I heard good things about it.
For fetching/writing/accessing data you are basically dealing with XML so any XML technique should apply. The best approach really depends on the actual content and how it is going to be used. I would suggest looking into XPath for data access, and maybe look into defining your own hibernate usertype so that all the access is encapsulated into a class and not just plain String.
I've run into more problems than I hoped I would and as such I decided to dumb down the requirements for my first iteration. I'm currently trying to allow such Extensions only on the entire Company entity, in other words, I'm dropping the whole Owner requirement. So the problem could be rephrased as "How can I add virtual columns (entries in another entity that act like an additional column) to an entity at runtime?"
My current implementation is as follow (irrelevant parts filtered out):
#Entity
class Company {
// The set of Extension definitions, for example "Location"
#Transient
public Set<Extension> getExtensions { .. }
// The actual entry, for example "Atlanta"
#OneToMany(fetch = FetchType.EAGER)
#JoinColumn(name = "companyId")
public Set<ExtensionEntry> getExtensionEntries { .. }
}
#Entity
class Extension {
public String getLabel() { .. }
public ValueType getValueType() { .. } // String, Boolean, Date, etc.
}
#Entity
class ExtensionEntry {
#ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.EAGER)
#JoinColumn(name = "extensionId")
public Extension getExtension() { .. }
#ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#JoinColumn(name = "companyId", insertable = false, updatable = false)
public Company getCompany() { .. }
public String getValueAsString() { .. }
}
The implementation as is allows me to load a Company entity and Hibernate will ensure that all its ExtensionEntries are also loaded and that I can access the Extensions corresponding to those ExtensionEntries. In other words, if I wanted to, for example, display this additional information on a web page, I could access all of the required information as follow:
Company company = findCompany();
for (ExtensionEntry extensionEntry : company.getExtensionEntries()) {
String label = extensionEntry.getExtension().getLabel();
String value = extensionEntry.getValueAsString();
}
There are a number of problems with this, however. Firstly, when using FetchType.EAGER with an #OneToMany, Hibernate uses an outer join and as such will return duplicate Companies (one for each ExtensionEntry). This can be solved by using Criteria.DISTINCT_ROOT_ENTITY, but that in turn will cause errors in my pagination and as such is an unacceptable answer. The alternative is to change the FetchType to LAZY, but that means that I will always "manually" have to load ExtensionEntries. As far as I understand, if, for example, I loaded a List of 100 Companies, I'd have to loop over and query each of those, generating a 100 SQL statements which isn't acceptable performance-wise.
The other problem which I have is that ideally I'd like to load all the Extensions whenever a Company is loaded. With that I mean that I'd like that #Transient getter named getExtensions() to return all the Extensions for any Company. The problem here is that there is no foreign key relation between Company and Extension, as Extension isn't applicable to any single Company instance, but rather to all of them. Currently I can get past that with code like I present below, but this will not work when accessing referenced entities (if for example I have an entity Employee which has a reference to Company, the Company which I retrieve through employee.getCompany() won't have the Extensions loaded):
List<Company> companies = findAllCompanies();
List<Extension> extensions = findAllExtensions();
for (Company company : companies) {
// Extensions are the same for all Companies, but I need them client side
company.setExtensions(extensions);
}
So that's were I'm at currently, and I have no idea how to proceed in order to get past these problems. I'm thinking that my entire design might be flawed, but I'm unsure of how else to try and approach it.
Any and all ideas and suggestions are welcome!
The example with Company, Partner, and Customer is actually good application for polymorphism which is supported by means of inheritance with JPA: you will have one the following 3 strategies to choose from: single table, table per class, and joined. Your description sounds more like joined strategy but not necessarily.
You may also consider just one-to-one( or zero) relationship instead. Then you will need to have such relationship for each value of your virtual column since its values represent different entities. Hence, you'll have a relationship with Partner entity and another relationship with Customer entity and either, both or none can be null.
Use pattern decorator and hide your entity inside decoratorClass bye
Using EAV pattern is IMHO bad choice, because of performance problems and problems with reporting (many joins). Digging for solution I've found something else here: http://www.infoq.com/articles/hibernate-custom-fields
Related
I am currently working on several solutions to redesign a web application based on a database that is shared between this application and other running services.
The actual application uses NodeJS, and basically processes data after having exctracted too much information from a table in the database. I think this is wrong, because we should only ask the database for the data we need, and limit processing on the server as these processes imply long loading time for end users.
So I thought I would build a Java API instead, that would use objects that can be easily used by the front part of the application, and use Hibernate or an equivalent component to extract necessary information from database.
But the problem is that the database over which I would build this API, while supposed to be relational (it's postgreSQL), is actually composed of tables that do not communicate between each other : there are no joins between tables, hence no cascade on modifiying related objects. Furthermore, the tables do not correspond directly to objects used in the application. They are more like "super objects" that would contain other sub-objects in a Java model.
Problem is, I cannot recreate a "cleaner" database as it is used by other services (which is probably why it is so weirdly organised, by the way). I should use it as it is, and map the redesigned application to it. I could be allowed to redesign some tables to make them "more relational", but this should have no implications for the other services. That would imply to drastically rewrite some SQL functions, and I am not sure that it is a very efficient solution. That being say, I am not very experienced on writing SQL functions, so maybe that could be a solution in the end.
So, to put it all in a nutshell, what could I do to build an object oriented model using Java, or any other technology that you could think of, to redesign properly the application, without throwing the database or modifying it drastically ?
Any suggestion or lead of research would be greatly appreciated. Also, please tell me if I am not being precise enough, and I will try to improve my question.
Use JPA to map your database records into entities.
This wiki page gives quite a few samples of advanced uses :
multiple tables for an entity :
#Entity
#Table(name="EMPLOYEE")
#SecondaryTable(name="EMP_DATA",
pkJoinColumns = #PrimaryKeyJoinColumn(name="EMP_ID", referencedColumnName="ID")
)
public class Employee {
...
#Column(name="YEAR_OF_SERV", table="EMP_DATA")
private int yearsOfService;
#OneToOne
#JoinColumn(name="MGR_ID", table="EMP_DATA", referencedColumnName="ID")
private Employee manager;
...
}
multiple kind of entities in single table (this sample is mine, there was no code on the wiki ; let's hope I didn't mess it up !) :
#Inheritance
#DiscriminatorColumn(name="DISCRIMINATING_COLUMN")
#Table(name="SOME_TABLE")
public class Generic { ... }
// only maps records from SOME_TABLE where DISCRIMINATING_COLUMN=SOME_VALUE
#Entity
#DiscriminatorValue("SOME_VALUE")
public class firstSpecificType { ... }
// only maps records from SOME_TABLE where DISCRIMINATING_COLUMN=OTHER_VALUE
#Entity
#DiscriminatorValue("OTHER_VALUE")
public class secondSpecificType { ... }
entities from proc calls :
// This stored procedure returns a result set and has one input parameter.
#NamedStoredProcedureQuery(
name = "ReadAddressById",
resultClasses = Address.class,
procedureName = "READ_ADDRESS",
parameters = {
#StoredProcedureParameter(mode=javax.persistence.ParameterMode.IN, name="P_ADDRESS_ID", type=Long.class)
}
)
#Entity
public class Address {
...
}
and many others.
Reading a wiki page about Hibernate I elaborated some perplexing conclusions:
1) Bidirectionality is reccomended in one-to-many
2) Bidirectionality is optional in many-to-one
3) Bidirectionality is normally present in many-to-many
4) Unidirectionality is reccomended in one-to-one relationships,
using as owner class the one with the primary key of the
relation (not the foreign key).
Are these statements true? Do you have any example to explain why in some cases unidirectionality is reccomended and in others bidirectionality is reccomended instead?
Here's the wiki page (read under "concepts"):
http://wiki.elvanor.net/index.php/Hibernate
Note that "bidirectionality" in the context of Hibernate means that in your Java classes, both sides of the relationship maintain a link to the other side. It has no impact on the underlying database schema (except in the case of indexed collections, see below), it's just whether or not you want the Java side to reflect that.
For all of your conclusions, "recommended" actually translates to "it usually ends up making sense, given your business logic, that you'd do it this way".
You really want to read through chapters 7 and 8 of the Hibernate Core Reference Manual.
It's recommended if you need it. A lot of convenience comes from specifying a bidirectional relationship; particularly it becomes possible to navigate the relationship from both ends in your business logic. However, if you don't actually need to do this, there's nothing to gain. Use whatever is most appropriate for the situation. In practice I've found that I want to specify both ends of the relationship to Hibernate more often than not -- but it is not a rule, rather, it reflects what I want to accomplish.
This is true. In a many-to-one (or one-to-many) relationship, it is optional. Consider the following schema:
table: users
fields: userId, userName
table: forumPosts
fields: postId, userId, content
Where forumPosts.userId is a foreign key into users. Your DAO classes might be (getters/setters omitted for brevity):
public class User {
private long userId;
private String userName;
}
public class ForumPost {
private long postId;
private User user;
private String content;
}
As you can see, this is a unidirectional many-to-one relationship (ForumPost-to-User). The ForumPost links to the user, but the User does not contain a list of ForumPosts.
You could then add a one-to-many mapping to User to make it have a list of ForumPosts. If you use a non-indexed collection like a set, this has no impact on the database schema. Merely by specifying both sides to Hibernate, you have made it bidirectional (using exactly the same schema as above), e.g.:
public class User {
private long userId;
private String userName;
private Set<ForumPost> forumPosts;
}
public class ForumPost {
private long postId;
private User user;
private String content;
}
Hibernate will now populate User.forumPosts when necessary (essentially with SELECT * FROM forumPosts WHERE userId = ?). The only difference between bidirectional and unidirectional here is that in one case Hibernate fills a set of ForumPosts in User, and in the other case it doesn't. If you ever have to get a collection of any given user's posts, you will want to use a bidirectional relationship like this rather than explicitly constructing an HQL query. Depending on your inverse/insert/update/cascade options in your relationship, you can also add and remove posts by modifying the User's set of posts, which may be a more accurate reflection of your business logic (or not!).
The reason I specified that non-indexed collections don't impact the underlying schema is because if you want to use an ordered, indexed collection like a list, you do have to add an extra list index field to the forumPosts table (although you do not have to add it to the ForumPost DAO class).
This is true, but is not a requirement and it's deeper than that. Same as above. Bidirectionality is usually present in many-to-many. Many-to-many relationships are implemented with a third join table. You specify the details of this table on both sides of the relationship. You can simply not specify the relationship on one side, and now it's a unidirectional relationship. Again, whether or not you tell Hibernate about the mapping is what determines if its unidirectional or bidirectional (in the context of Hibernate). In this case it also has no impact on the underlying schema unless you are using an ordered index collection. In fact, the many-to-many example in the Hibernate reference manual is a unidirectional setup.
In reality, it would be odd to have a unidirectional many-to-many relationship, unless perhaps you are working with an existing database schema and your particular application's business logic has no need for one of the sides of the relationship. Usually, though, when you've decided you need a many-to-many relationship, you've decided that because you need to maintain a collection of references on both sides of the relationship, and your DAO classes would reflect that need.
So the correct conclusion here is not merely that "bidirectionality is normally present in many-to-many", but instead "if you've designed a database with a join table, but your business logic only uses a unidirectional relationship, you should question whether or not your schema is appropriate for your application (and it very well may be)".
This is not true. Exactly the same as all the points above. If you need to navigate the one-to-one relationship from both sides, then you'd want to make it bidirectional (specify both sides of the mapping to Hibernate). If not, then you make it unidirectional (don't specify both sides of the mapping to Hibernate). This again comes down to what makes sense in your business layer.
I hope that helps. I left a lot of intricacies out. You really should read through the Hibernate documentation - it is not organized particularly well but Chapter 7 and 8 will tell you everything you need to know about collection mapping.
When I'm designing an application and a database from scratch, personally, I try to forget about Hibernate and the database entirely. I set up my DAOs in a way that makes sense for my business requirements, design a database schema to match, then set up the Hibernate mappings, making any final tweaks to the schema (e.g. adding index fields for ordered collections) at that point if necessary.
AppEngine only supports "TABLE_PER_CLASS" and "MAPPED_SUPERCLASS" for JPA inheritance.
Unfortunately "JOINED" and especially "SINGLE_TABLE" are not supported.
I'm wondering what the best alternative is to implement a SINGLE_TABLE alternative?
My only requirements are:
1) Have separate classes like AbstractEmployee, InternalEmployee, ExternalExmployee.
2) Being able to run a query over all employees, thus resulting in both InternalEmployee and ExternalEmployee instances.
The only thing I'm thinking off is using a 'big' Employee object containing all fields?
Any other ideas?
PS: vote for proper "SINGLE_TABLE" support via http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=8366
You could in theory use #Embeded and #Embeddable to group related fields into an object. So you would have a class that looks something like.
#Entity
public class Employee {
// all the common employee fields go here
//
// the discriminator column on Employee class lets you be specific in your queries
private Integer type;
#Emebded
private Internal internal; // has the fields that are internal
#Embeded
private External external; // has the fields that are external
equals & hashcode that compare based on the discriminator type and other fields
}
What AppEngine supports and doesn't support is misleading there. AppEngine uses a property store, so any Kind can have any properties. Consequently, in principle, a Kind can contain InternalEmployee and ExternalEmployee "instances". The only thing that AppEngine JPA actually does is store all fields of a class in a single Kind object. That doesn't preclude having subtypes stored in the same Kind (with extra properties for the subtype-specific fields), which is the equivalent of "single-table".
PS, raising some issue on "AppEngine" as a whole won't get any response (look at the rest of issues in there ;-) ), bearing in mind the code affected here is in its own project at http://code.google.com/p/datanucleus-appengine and has its own issue tracker
I'm working on a desktop application in Java6 using H2 as the db and Hibernate 3.6.
Because of a construct with a third-party library involving JNI and some interesting decisions made a priori, I am unable to pass around long identifiers in their index code, and can only pass int. These indexes are generated quickly and repeatedly(not my choice), and get handed around via callbacks. However, I can split my expected dataset along the lines of a string value, and keep my id size at int without blowing out my id's. To this end, I'm keeping a long value as pk on the core object, and then using that as a one-to-one into another table, where it maps the int id back to the core entity, which when combined with the string, is unique.
So I've considered embedded compound keys and such in hibernate, but what I REALLY want is to just have this "extra" id that is unique within the context of the extra string key, but not necessarily universally unique.
So something like(not adding extraneous code/annotations):
#Entity
public class Foo{
...
#Id
public Long getId(){...}
...
#OneToOne
#PrimaryKeyJoinColumn
public ExtraKey getExtra(){...}
}
#Entity
public class ExtraKey{
...
#Id
public Long getFooId(){...}
...
public Integer getExtraId(){...}
...
public String getMagicString(){...}
}
In that case, I could really even remove the magicString, and just have the fooId -> extraId mapping in the table, and then have the extraId + magicString be in another where magicString is unique. However, I want hibernate to allow the creation of new magicString's at whim(app requirement), ideally one per row in a table, and then have hibernate just update the extraId associated to that magicString via incrementation/other strategy.
Perusing all of the hibernate manuals and trying a few tests on my own in a separate environment has not quite yielded what I want(dynamically created named and sequential id's basically), so I was hoping for SO's input. It's entirely possible I'll have to hand-code all of it myself in the db with sequences or splitting a long and doing logic on the upper and lower, but I'd really rather not, as I might have to maintain this code someday(really likely).
Edit/Addendum
As a sneaky way of getting around this, I'm just adding the extraId to the Foo object(ditching the extraKey class), and generating it from another object singleton, that at load time, does a group by select over the backing Foo table, returning magicKey, and the max(extraId). When I create a new Foo, I ask that object(multithread safe) to hand me the next extraId for the given magicKey and push that into Foo, and store it, thus updating my effective extraId for each magicKey on next app reload without an extra table. It costs me one group by query on the first request for a new extraId, which is suboptimal, but it's fast enough for what I need, simple enough to maintain in the future, and all contained in an external class, so I COULD replace it in one place if I ever come up with something more clever. I do dislike having the extra "special query" in my dao for this purpose, but it's easy enough to remove in the future, and well-documented.
Maybe I still didn't understand your problem properly, but I think you can consider using Hibernate's hilo algorithm. It will generate unique identifier for the whole database, based on a table that Hibernate creates and manages. More details here:
http://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/core/3.5/reference/en/html/mapping.html#mapping-declaration-id
Are there any statements in JPA spec or official docs about certain JPA implementations which describe the behavior when we annotate entity's methods and when we annotate entity's fields?
Just a few hours ago I met an ugly problem: I use JPA (via Hibernate, but without anything Hybernate-specific in java code) with MS SQL Server. And I put all annotations on entities' fields (I preferred this style until this day).
When I looked at the DB I found that all table columns which should be foreing keys and which should contain some integers (ids) in fact had varbinary(255, null) type and contained hashes of something (I don't know what was that but it looked as a typical MD5 hash).
The most frustrated thing is that the app worked correctly. But occasionally (on updates) I got MS SQL exception which stated that I tried to insert too long values and data cannot be truncated.
Eventually (as an experiment) I removed all annotations from entities fields and put all of them on methods. I recreated DB and all tables contained perfect FK column. And those columns stored integers (ids, like 1, 3 ,4 ...).
So, can somebody explain what was that?
I've found this SO thread and it's accepted answer says that the preferred way is to put annotations on fields. At least for my concrete case I can say that it's not true.
JPA allows for two types of access to the data of a persistent class. Field access which means that it maps the instance variables (fields) to columns in the database and Property access which means that is uses the getters to determine the property names that will be mapped to the db. What access type it will be used is decided by where you put the #Id annotation (on the id field or the getId() method).
From experience, I do the following.
I put the entity details at the top of the entity class definition, (schema, row constraints, etc) for instance....
#Entity
#Table(name="MY_TABLE", schema = "MY_SCHEMA", uniqueConstraints = #UniqueConstraint(columnNames = "CONSTRAINT1"))
For the fields defined, I do not put the annotations on the field declarations, but rather on the getter methods for those fields
#Column(name = "MY_COL", table="MY_TABLE", nullable = false, length = 35)
public String getMyCol() {
return this.myCol;
}
public void setMyCol(String myCol) {
this.myCol = myCol;
}