We Keep Coding

Multiple Inheritance in Java - Spring Data

I want to create a DAO class named BaseDAO that should have the JPA and JDBC capabilities in Spring. I mean, I want to extend JPADAOSupport and JDBCDAOSupport classes of spring in to my BaseDAO class. I am aware that multiple inheritance is not an option in Java.
I have created two separate Base classes like BaseJPADao and BaseJdbcDao extending the respective classes. Is it possible to have a single class to extend both? Is there any design pattern solving this issue. Please advise.

Why don't you have a DaoGateway bean having injected the actual JPA DAO and the JDBC DAO beans.
This gateway can then decide which DAO to delegate a given request (to JPA or to JDBC).
You should always favour composition vs inheritance when reusing functionalities.

no it is not. if it was possible, you would still have the same result as in
one class extending JPADAOSupport and JDBCDAOSupport, which you yourself say you know is not possible because multiple inheritance is impossible.
you can write to an interface, and provide two implementations, though.

This would be easy to do with delegation if they both had interface level access you want:
public class MyUberClass implements WhateverJPADAOSupportDoes, WhateverJDBCDAOSupportDoes {
private JPADAOSuport jpa;
private JDBCDAOSupport jdbc;
// now implement all methods specified by the interfaces on the class signature and delegate to their respective member
}
But it seems you want access to all of their public methods. As there is no interface for both you can do the same as above but it can't be of both types simultaneously. The language expressly denies you this.
Your only other option is to create an adapter interface that your code can rely on and then use the combination delegation. If you're hoping to have one class that you can just drop in as a substitution for both then the answer is you can't.

Implementing Entity

I am marking some of JPA class with predefined interface say Auditable. Now I want to invoke EntityListeners Auditor #PrePersist marked method. This has to be done to only those entity which implements this interface. I can see we can do this on Parent Classes but are interface allowed ?

Using interface is wrong here it is you must use abstract class ,interface is just used to represent class behavior not persistent field. by the way try see eclipse link they support additional thing in interface.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Java_Persistence/Advanced_Topics#Interfaces

How to handle various concrete implementations of an Interface with JAX-B

I have a class that any I need to marshal to XML.
#XmlRootElement
#XmlAccessorType(XmlAccessType.FIELD)
public class ClassToBeMarshalled {
public Interface object;
}
The Interface is implemented by a lot of concrete classes and most of them are vendor specific whose source code I don't have access to.
So my problem is:
If I try to marshal that class, JAX-B will complain that the current concrete implementation of Interface is not known in the context - In another words, the concrete class was not loaded into the context by calling JAXBContext.newInstance providing the current implementation.
The most common ways to sort out that problem are:
1) Use XMLSeeAlso - not a viable option as there are a lot of concrete classes
2) Annotate each class with #XmlRootElement - not a viable option as I don't have access to all the classes
Does anyone know a way to make JAX-B load the concrete class into its context as the need arises?
Thanks.
P.S.: I'm using JAX-B RI

You could mark your object as #XmlAnyElement(InterfaceHandler.class) where InterfaceHandler is a DomHandler capable of translating between a DOM representation and the actual implementing classes. That handler should probably store the class name when marshalling, and use that class name to create the instance when unmarshalling. It might either configure the instance manually, perhaps using some helper classes designed to work with beans, or it might use another jaxb context which includes that specifically named class and will handle that object with all its nested children.
Also have a look at the #XmlElementRef annotation. I fear that in order to make this work properly, you'd have to at least know all the implementing classes at compile time, but perhaps there is a way you can make this work for you as well, with less trouble than the generic solution outlined in the previous paragraph.

JPA: Implementing Model Hierarchy - #MappedSuperclass vs. #Inheritance

I am using Play Framework 1.2.4 with PostgreSQL and JPA. I would like to have a Model hierarchy and see that there are some alternatives to doing this.
I have a base class (which is abstract) and two concrete classes extending this base class. I don't want to persist this base class while I want to have concrete classes. In the base class, I have another Model classes as properties, in other words, I have #ManyToOne relationships in my base class.
My question is what is the best way of implementing this? Using #MappedSuperclass or #Inheritance with TABLE_PER_CLASS strategy? I am a bit confused as they seem virtually equivalent.
I also have some concerns about querying and performance issues that I might face in future.

MappedSuperClass must be used to inherit properties, associations, and methods.
Entity inheritance must be used when you have an entity, and several sub-entities.
You can tell if you need one or the other by answering this questions: is there some other entity in the model which could have an association with the base class?
If yes, then the base class is in fact an entity, and you should use entity inheritance. If no, then the base class is in fact a class that contains attributes and methods that are common to several unrelated entities, and you should use a mapped superclass.
For example:
You can have several kinds of messages: SMS messages, email messages, or phone messages. And a person has a list of messages. You can also have a reminder linked to a message, regardless of the kind of message. In this case, Message is clearly an entity, and entity inheritance must be used.
All your domain objects could have a creation date, modification date and ID, and you could thus make them inherit from a base AbstractDomainObject class. But no entity will ever have an association to an AbstractDomainObject. It will always be an association to a more specific entity: Customer, Company, whatever. In this case, it makes sense to use a MappedSuperClass.

#MappedSupperclass is different than the #Inheritance annotation.
#MappedSuperclass tells the JPA provider to include the base class persistent properties as if they were declared by the child class extending the superclass annotated with #MappedSuperclass.
However, the inheritance is only visible in the OOP world, since, from a database perspective, there's no indication of the base class. Only the child class entity will have an associated mapped table.
The #Inheritance annotation is meant to materialize the OOP inheritance model in the database table structure. More, you can query a base class annotated with #Inheritance but you can't do that for a base class annotated with #MappedSuperclass.
Now, the reason why you'd want to use the #Inheritance JPA annotation is to implement behavior-driven patterns like the Strategy Pattern.
On the other hand, #MappedSuperclass is just a way to reuse both basic properties, associations, and even the entity #Id using a common base class. Nevertheless, you can achieve almost the same goal using an #Embeddable type. The only major difference is that you can't reuse an #Id definition with #Embeddable, but you can do it with #MappedSuperclass.

Hibernate - derived java classes for tables

I generated mapping files and POJOs in Netbeans instead of writing them myself. Is it possible to use a derived class in a place of an inherited class? An example would be something like this:
Person.hbm.xml - mapping file
Person.java - generated class (strategy class per table)
PersonExtended - class that extends Person.java
So when I create a new object:
PersonExtended personextended = new PersonExtended(<parameters>);
Would I be able to call methods like:
session.save(personextended) or session.delete(personextended)
?
Is this scenario sensible or should I add any code that I need to in a generated class? Thanks in advance for help or suggestions.
-------Edit--------
In my database I don't have the typical structure that would be possible to be mapped as an inheritance. I merely want to keep the additional methods separate from the main java class for an entity.
Best Regards,
sass.

you will have to tell hibernate how your extended classes should be mapped via a the hbm.xml file. Depending on the strategy Hibernate should use for polymorphism you might have to assign a descriminator value. there are 3 different strategies when using subclasses known as "table per class" "table per concrete class" and "table per subclass".
You can define subclasses in the hbm-xml file by using the <subclass> or <joined-subclass> elements
if you correctly defined your hbm.xml file you can then use session.save(new PersonExtended()) or sth.
you can read up on this here:
http://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/core/3.3/reference/en/html/inheritance.html
hope that helped..