We Keep Coding

Difference between Hibernate mapping file and annotation

Today I was trying to create a application using Hibernate as ORM. So while creating I had a doubt. What is the best practice to use, Hibernate mapping file (.hbm file) or annotations ? What are the pros and cons of it ? Please help me in understanding.

there is no functional difference. You can do (almost) the same things with both approaches
xml files were used before Java had annotations (added in 1.5), so they can be considered an outdated way of mapping
it is generally preferred to use JPA annotations rather than hibernate-specific ones; if using xml - there is a JPA xml format, which should be preferred to hibernate native one

The question is what is your taste - both ways can do (mostly) the same, the difference is how to write.
With annotations you have the Java member variable/getter and the mapping directly together at one place.
Xml mapping files give a better overview over the table and its mapping.
In my opinion xml mapping files help for a better design of the database and application. Annonations tend to force the direction Java class -> mapping -> database table, which is the wrong direction (the database always should be designed first - changing database tables later is a lot of effort - most performance leaks are in a bad database design - Java classes easily can be changed any time).
There if one functional advantage of xml files: If you have different databases with structural differences, for example one Oracle database and one MySQL database, perhaps some differences in table names and data types, then for porting your application from one database to another you only need to write some new mapping files. You do not need to change a single line of Java code. This is not possible with annotations.
I prefer to use xml mapping files. That is my taste.

One good use-case for using the XML approach is if you are persisting objects that have been generated by another utility and therefore cannot be annotated.
Other than that, I would use annotations as it tends to lend itself to a cleaner implementation and you're less likely to introduce bugs by misspelling property names.

This is how it says in "TUTORIALS POINT"
"If you going to make your application portable to other EJB 3 compliant ORM applications, you must use annotations to represent the mapping information but still if you want greater flexibility then you should go with XML-based mappings"
For me I would prefer XML configuration file, than annotation. Because then we can do changes, with minimum code changes.

Annotations are based on the principle of convention over configuration:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_over_configuration
while xml files are just configuration.
There are many discussions about using annotations vs using configuration.
stackoverflow link
From my point of view, I prefer annotations because it is easier to write and to maintain.

Annotations are developed with java language and java developer easy to learn when compared with XML. And one more point in real time table names and column names are fixed 99%, so no need to change java code also
but if you want to change table names and column names frequently you will move with XML
finally cfg.xml file is manadatary because database may change.

How do Annotations works internally in Java or any other programming language?

I having hard time understanding importance and benefits of Annotations and so have two questions regarding them:
What are the benefits of Annotations as compared to XML Configuration?
How do Annotations work internally?
Is it fair enough to say that annotation binds application tightly whereas with XML Configuration Application is loosely coupled?
Would appreciate pros and cons comparison with XML Configuration with example so that it would be much more helpful for me to understand.
Regards.

For your 1st question,
Xml configuration versus Annotation based configuration
Personally, I feel, there are two criteria's
Can annotations simplify the metadata ?
If annotations do not reduce the amount of metadata that you have to provide (in most cases they do), then you shouldn’t use annotation.
Can changes to the metadata break behavior in your application?
If not, then you can feel comfortable applying the change while the system is running in production. External config files are the best place for the metadata in this case because you don’t want to have to recompile your code to make the change.
For your 2nd question,
How Do Annotations Work?
Important Links :
What are annotations and how do they actually work for frameworks like Spring?

Both annotations and XML descriptors are used to describe some metadata on top of regular code. The primary difference is that in case of annotations you only have to deal with one file which includes code and metadata. It is also a big advantage of annotations as it reduces number of moving parts and increases productivity.
On the other hand, the drawback of annotations is that they bind together the code and the system or framework that operates using those annotations. That makes it harder to separate those in future.
For example, if you use Hibernate Annotations, you bind your model objects with Hibernate. If you choose to switch to different framework, you will have to rip out Hibernate annotations from the code.
But practically, it's not that likely that you will be changing frameworks that often. There are usually many other reasons why changing framework on existing code base may be hard. So often annotations is a good choice.
As to how they work, annotations are a part of the language and are processed by compiler and other tools and, depending on retention, can be included in produced bytecode for use at runtime. Ultimately, it's up to consumer to decide on how to use annotations.

To answer the first question, IMO the greatest benefit is the potential for compiler integration. I can write an annotation processor that can validate some semantics related to the application of the annotation. That kind of compile-time checking is not possible (or would at least be way more difficult) if the same information was instead part of an XML document.
To answer the second question, annotations don't really "work" internally, per se, in the sense that they don't have any inherent execution semantics. They are source level entities that may or may not be retained in the classfile. The can be processed during compilation of the source, and if they were retained in the classfile, can be accessed via reflection.

Why are people continuing to use xml mapping files instead of annotations? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I've observed the strange fact (based on the questions in the hibernate tag) that people are still actively using xml files instead of annotations to specify their ORM (Hibernate/JPA) mappings.
There are a few cases, where this is necessary:
you are using classes that are provided, and you want to map them.
you are writing an API, whose domain classes can be used without a JPA provider, so you don't want to force a JPA/Hibernate dependency.
But these are not common cases, I think.
My assumptions are:
people are used to xml files and don't feel comfortable / don't want to bother learning to use the annotation approach.
Java pre-1.5 is forced upon the project and there is nothing to do about it
people don't know that annotations are a full-featured replacement of xml mapping.
legacy systems are supported and hence changing the approach is considered risky
people fear that mixing annotations (meta-information) with their classes is wrong.
Any other possible explanations?

The domain layer and the persistence layer are considered by some to be separate concerns. Using the pure XML approach keeps the two layers as loosely coupled as possible; using annotations couples the two layers more tightly as you have persistence-related code embedded in the domain code.

Lack of overview of what's been mapped. You need to dig in the source code.

people don't know that annotations are
a full-featured replacement of xml
mapping.
Ah, but they're not. Three cases off the top of my head (there are probably more) you can't do (well) with annotations:
Use formula as part of association key (admittedly, rather esoteric).
Join-via-subselect - #Loader is not an adequate replacement. Not too common but quite useful. Envers provides a viable alternate approach.
Losing column order for schema generation. This one's an absolute killer. I understand why it's done this way, but it still annoys me to no end.
Don't get me wrong, though - annotations are great; doubly so when they're coupled with Validator (though, again, #3 above kills the buzz on this one). They also provide certain aspects of functionality that XML mappings do not.

Using XML to complement the annotations, where environment or system specific configuration is needed.

Some information is carried nicely in annotations, such as the cardinality of relationships between entities. These annotations provide more detail about the model itself, rather than how the model relates to something else.
However, bindings, whether to a persistence store or XML or anything else, are extrinsic to the model. They change depending on the context in which the model is used. Including them in the model is as bad as using inline style definitions in HTML. I use external binding (usually—though not necessarily—XML) documents for the same reasons I reference an external CSS.

I initially found the annotation syntax very weird. It looks like line noise and mixes in with where I usually put comments. It's vastly better than dealing with the XML files though, because all of the changes are in one place, the model file. Perhaps one limitation of annotation is possible collision with other annotations, but I haven't seen that yet.
I think the real reason that it isn't used more is that it isn't really considered the default. You have to use an additional jar file. It should be part of core and the XML approach should be the optional one.

I've switched to annotations, but sometimes I miss the XML mappings, mainly because the documentation was so much more comprehensive, with examples of many scenarios. With annotations, I stick to pretty basic mappings (which is great if you control the data and object model), but I've done some very complex things in the XML that I don't know if I could replicate in the annotations.

So if you want to deploy your class to multiple datastores. And you want to annotate column definitions into it do you ? Different datastores have different conventions etc and using XML is the only sane place in that situation, being able to have one for MySQL, and one for Derby, and one for Oracle or whatever. You can still put the basic persistence/relation annotations in if you wish, but the schema-specific stuff would go into XML in that case.
--Andy (DataNucleus)

I have a new one : http://www.summerofnhibernate.com/
Very nice screencast series not yet covering annotations. I have written some apps with it to learn the basics, not for my job but out of curiosity, but never migrated to annotations yet. The series where suggested as still relevant on SO. I still will migrate to annotations if I have some more spare time but for the time being I could be one of the persons asking questions about it.

I worked on a project where the database would change very frequently and we have to regenerate the java files and configuration files each time it happens. Actually we do not use all the relationships and configurations generated by hibernate tool. So basically we use the tool and then modify/tweak them.
So when you want to modify/tweak the default configurations, it is easier to do in the XML file in comparison to doing it through annotations.

I feel that it makes the code much more readable if we donot use Annotations.Use of Annotations can really help if the configuration info changes frequently, but take the case of web.xml, how many times does the info in that change, so why use annotations for Servlets.

We continue to use XML because typically for deployed sites, getting a patch (binary code) approved for installation takes time that you may not have. Updates to ASCII files (e.g. xml files) are considered configuration changes and not patches...
t

Hibernate Tools and the ever changing database

I am currently using Hibernate Tools 3.1; I customized naming convention and DAO templates. The database (SQL Server 2005) in early development phase and I'm in charge of rebuilding the mappings, entities, DAOs, configuration, whatever. Each time I have to reverse-engineer the tables and so I lose every customization I made on the mappings (*.hbm.xml files) like adjusting the identity columns, picking the fields used in equals and toString. I was considering to write the diff XML in a file and the "merge" that onto the generated mapping (see my related question) but I was wondering... is there any best practice/tool for dealing with these annoying, unavoidable, critical tasks?

I'd strongly recommend against continual reverse engineering. Reverse engineering is a great one time thing, but changes need to be managed as changes to both the hbm and the database.
We use migrations to manage db changes, and we include the associated changes in the hbm. If Hibernate has it (I believe it does) you may want to look into annotations instead of an hbm, they can be quite a bit easier to maintain.

This is two and a half years late, but I'll offer a dissenting opinion. You should be able to make any customizations you need to the mapping files through the hibernate.reveng.xml file or a custom ReverseEngineeringStrategy. For the classes themselves, you should always generate to base classes and extend them with classes containing custom code.
For example, generate com.company.vo.generated.CustomerGenerated and extend it with com.company.vo.custom.Customer. Code generation should overwrite all classes in the generated package but never in the custom package (although you can have Hibernate Tools generate these custom classes in the target directory so that you can copy and paste blanks into the custom directory as needed). This way you can override methods for equals, toString, etc in the custom classes and not lose your changes when you regenerate. Also note that the best practice is to not check in generated code into SCM.
There are some great examples on this site of how to achieve this using Maven, the Hibernate3 plugin, and the build helper plugin. Most of these have very helpful answers by Pascal Thivent. This method is working beautifully for me, and while there is a bit of a learning curve it's a wonderful thing to be able to propagate database changes to the app with a single Maven command.

Xml configuration versus Annotation based configuration [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
In a few large projects i have been working on lately it seems to become increasingly important to choose one or the other (XML or Annotation). As projects grow, consistency is very important for maintainability.
My questions are: what are the advantages of XML-based configuration over Annotation-based configuration and what are the advantages of Annotation-based configuration over XML-based configuration?

Annotations have their use, but they are not the one silver bullet to kill XML configuration. I recommend mixing the two!
For instance, if using Spring, it is entirely intuitive to use XML for the dependency injection portion of your application. This gets the code's dependencies away from the code which will be using it, by contrast, using some sort of annotation in the code that needs the dependencies makes the code aware of this automatic configuration.
However, instead of using XML for transactional management, marking a method as transactional with an annotation makes perfect sense, since this is information a programmer would probably wish to know. But that an interface is going to be injected as a SubtypeY instead of a SubtypeX should not be included in the class, because if now you wish to inject SubtypeX, you have to change your code, whereas you had an interface contract before anyways, so with XML, you would just need to change the XML mappings and it is fairly quick and painless to do so.
I haven't used JPA annotations, so I don't know how good they are, but I would argue that leaving the mapping of beans to the database in XML is also good, as the object shouldn't care where its information came from, it should just care what it can do with its information. But if you like JPA (I don't have any expirience with it), by all means, go for it.
In general:
If an annotation provides functionality and acts as a comment in and of itself, and doesn't tie the code down to some specific process in order to function normally without this annotation, then go for annotations. For example, a transactional method marked as being transactional does not kill its operating logic, and serves as a good code-level comment as well. Otherwise, this information is probably best expressed as XML, because although it will eventually affect how the code operates, it won't change the main functionality of the code, and hence doesn't belong in the source files.

There is a wider issue here, that of externalised vs inlined meta-data. If your object model is only ever going to persisted in one way, then inlined meta-data (i.e. annotations) are more compact and readable.
If, however, your object model was reused in different applications in such a way that each application wanted to persist the model in different ways, then externalising the meta-data (i.e. XML descriptors) becomes more appropriate.
Neither one is better, and so both are supported, although annotations are more fashionable. As a result, new hair-on-fire frameworks like JPA tend to put more emphasis on them. More mature APIs like native Hibernate offer both, because it's known that neither one is enough.

I always think about annotations as some kind of indicator of what a class is capable of, or how it interacts with others.
Spring XML configuration on the other hand to me is just that, configuration
For instance, information about the ip and port of a proxy, is definetly going into an XML file, it is the runtime configuration.
Using #Autowire,#Element to indicate the framework what to do with the class is good use of annotations.
Putting the URL into the #Webservice annotation is bad style.
But this is just my opinion.
The line between interaction and configuration is not always clear.

I've been using Spring for a few years now and the amount of XML that was required was definitely getting tedious. Between the new XML schemas and annotation support in Spring 2.5 I usually do these things:
Using "component-scan" to autoload classes which use #Repository, #Service or #Component. I usually give every bean a name and then wire them together using #Resource. I find that this plumbing doesn't change very often so annotations make sense.
Using the "aop" namespace for all AOP. This really works great. I still use it for transactions too because putting #Transactional all over the place is kind of a drag. You can create named pointcuts for methods on any service or repository and very quickly apply the advice.
I use LocalContainerEntityManagerFactoryBean along with HibernateJpaVendorAdapter to configure Hibernate. This lets Hibernate easily auto-discover #Entity classes on the classpath. Then I create a named SessionFactory bean using "factory-bean" and "factory-method" referring to the LCEMFB.

An important part in using an annotation-only approach is that the concept of a "bean name" more or less goes away (becomes insignificant).
The "bean names" in Spring form an additional level of abstraction over the implementing classes. With XML beans are defined and referenced relative to their bean name. With annotations they are referenced by their class/interface. (Although the bean name exists, you do not need to know it)
I strongly believe that getting rid of superfluous abstractions simplifies systems and improves productivity. For large projects I think the gains by getting rid of XML can be substantial.

It depends on what everything you want to configure, because there are some options that cannot be configured with anotations. If we see it from the side of annotations:
plus: annotations are less talky
minus: annotations are less visible
It's up to you what is more important...
In general I would recommend to choose one way and use it all over some closed part of product...
(with some exceptions: eg if you choose XML based configurations, it's ok to use #Autowire annotation. It's mixing, but this one helps both readability and maintainability)

I think that visibility is a big win with an XML based approach. I find that the XML isn't really that bad, given the various tools out there for navigating XML documents (i.e. Visual Studio + ReSharper's File Structure window).
You can certainly take a mixed approach, but that seems dangerous to me if only because, potentially, it would make it difficult for new developers on a project to figure out where different objects are configured or mapped.
I don't know; in the end XML Hell doesn't seem all that bad to me.

There are other aspect to compare like refactoring and other code changes. when using XML it takes serous effort to make refactoring because you have to take care of all the XML content. But it is easy when using Annotations.
My preferred way is the Java based configuration without (or minimal) annotations. http://static.springsource.org/spring/docs/3.0.x/spring-framework-reference/html/beans.html#beans-java

I might be wrong, but I thought Annotations (as in Java's #Tag and C#'s [Attribute]) were a compile-time option, and XML was a run-time option. That to me says the are not equivalent and have different pros and cons.

I also think a mix is the best thing, but it also depends on the type of configuration parameters.
I'm working on a Seam project which also uses Spring and I usually deploy it to different development and test servers. So I have split:
Server specific configuration (Like absolute paths to resources on server): Spring XML file
Injecting beans as members of other beans (or reusing a Spring XML defined value in many beans): Annotations
The key difference is that you don't have to recompile the code for all changing server-specific configurations, just edit the xml file.
There's also the advantage that some configuration changes can be done by team members who don't understand all the code involved.

In the scope of DI container, I consider annotation based DI is abusing the use of Java annotation. By saying that, I don't recommend to use it widely in your project. If your project does really needs the power of DI container, I would recommend to use Spring IoC with Xml based configuration option.
If it is just for a sake of Unit-test, developers should apply Dependency Inject pattern in their coding and take advantages from mocking tools such as EasyMock or JMock to circumvent dependencies.
You should try to avoid using DI container in its wrong context.

Configuration information that is always going to be linked to a specific Java component (class, method, or field) is a good candidate to be represented by annotations. Annotations work especially well in this case when the configuration is core to the purpose of the code. Because of the limitations on annotations, it's also best when each component can only ever have one configuration. If you need to deal with multiple configurations, especially ones that are conditional on anything outside the Java class containing an annotation, annotations may create more problems than they solve. Finally, annotations cannot be modified without recompiling the Java source code, so anything that needs to be reconfigurable at run time can't use annotations.
Please refer following links. They might be useful too.
Annotations vs XML, advantages and disadvantages
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/j-cwt08025/

This is the classic 'Configuration versus Convention' question. Personal taste dictates the answer in most cases. However, personally I prefer Configuration (i.e. XML based) over Convention. IMO IDE's are sufficiently robust enough to overcome some of the XML hell people often associate w/ the building and maintaining an XML based approach. In the end, I find the benefits of Configuration (such as building utilities to build, maintain and deploy the XML config file) outweighs Convention in the long run.

I use both. Mostly XML, but when I have a bunch of beans that inherit from a common class and have common properties, I use annotations for those, in the superclass, so I don't have to set the same properties for each bean. Because I'm a bit of a control freak, I use #Resource(name="referredBean") instead of just autowiring stuff (and save myself a lot of trouble if I ever need another bean of the same class as the original referredBean).

There are some pros and cons of annotation configuration from my experience:
When it comes to JPA configuration since it is done once and usually are not changed quite often I prefer to stick to annotation configuration. There maybe a concern regarding possibility to see a bigger picture of configuration - in this case I use MSQLWorkbench diagrams.
Xml configuration is very good to get a bigger picture of application but it maybe cumbersome to find some errors until runtime. In this case Spring #Configuration annotation sounds as a better choice since it let you see a bigger picture as well and also allows to validate configuration on compile time.
As for Spring configuration I prefer to combine both approaches: use #Configuration annotation with Services and Query interfaces and xml configuration for dataSource and spring configuration stuff like context:component-scan base-package="..."
But xml configuration bits java annotations when it comes to flow configuration(Spring Web Flow or Lexaden Web Flow) since it is extremely important to see a bigger picture of the whole business process. And it sounds cumbersome to have it implemented with annotations approach.
I prefer combining both approaches - java annotations and essential xml minimum that minimize configuration hell.

For Spring Framework I like the idea of being able to use the #Component annotation and setting the "component-scan" option so that Spring can find my java beans so that I do not have to define all of my beans in XML, nor in JavaConfig. For example, for stateless singleton java beans that simply need to be wired up to other classes (via an interface ideally) this approach works very well. In general, for Spring beans I have for the most part moved away from Spring XML DSL for defining beans, and now favor the use of JavaConfig and Spring Annotations because you get some compile time checking of your configuration and some refactoring support that you don't get with Spring XML configuration. I do mix the two in certain rare cases where I've found that JavaConfig/Annotations can't do what is available using XML configuration.
For Hibernate ORM (haven't used JPA yet) I still prefer the XML mapping files because annotations in domain model classes to some degree violates The Clean Architecture which is a layering architectural style I have adopted over the past few years. The violation occurs because it requires the Core Layer to depend on persistence related things such as Hibernate or JPA libraries and it makes the domain model POJOs a bit less persistence ignorant. In fact the Core Layer is not supposed to depend on any other infrastructure at all.
However, if The Clean Architecture is not your "cup of tea" then I can see there are definitely advantages (such as convenience and maintainability) of using Hibernate/JPA annotations in domain model classes over separate XML mapping files.