I am having some trouble with creating an #interface which combines some others in it.
For an example I want to create an #Interface and pass a parameter to it which will automatically be given/passed to its "parents".
As far as I know, this can not be done. But I am still curious if there is anything I could do.
#Entity(name = "categories")
#Where(clause = "deleted=0")
#SQLDelete(sql = "UPDATE categories SET deleted = 1 WHERE id = ? AND version = ?")
public class Category extends BaseEntity {
In the code above you can see that the parameter "name" which has value "categories" is used in the Entity annotation and it is also contained in the string of the SQLDelete.
Doing this, I want to make the code more readable, and avoid having too many Annotations which are the same for all of the entities I have. Also if I need to change an annotation for all of them to be able to make it easier.
Related
I have a case where I'm persisting a large jsonb field into a PostGres table, but do not want to read it when I fetch the entity; if I do fetch it, my service goes OOM. A better design might be to separate this into a 1 to 1 table, but I can't do that at this time.
To plead that this is not a duplicate question, here's some of my research:
I'm not able to mark the column LAZY since I have a simple column not a join`
JPA/Hibernate write only field with no read
I tried the empty setter in this suggestion, which makes sense - but it still appears to read the column and I OOM: https://www.zizka.ch/pages/programming/java/hibernate/hibernate-write-only.html
I also tried omitting the setter altogether in my #Data class: Omitting one Setter/Getter in Lombok
So, I can not see the field, but I can't seem to keep it from being read into memory in the background. It seems like there must be some simple setting in JPA or Hibernate to exclude a column from read. Before I go try to make a complex repository hierarchy just to see if it works, I thought I would ask here in case I get lucky.
Thanks in advance!
Lazy loading attributes
Hibernate can load attribute lazily, but you need to enable byte code enhancements:
First you need to set the property hibernate.enhancer.enableLazyInitialization to true
Then you can annotate the field with #Basic( fetch = FetchType.LAZY ).
Here's the example from the documentation:
#Entity
public class Customer {
#Id
private Integer id;
private String name;
#Basic( fetch = FetchType.LAZY )
private UUID accountsPayableXrefId;
#Lob
#Basic( fetch = FetchType.LAZY )
#LazyGroup( "lobs" )
private Blob image;
//Getters and setters are omitted for brevity
}
You can also enable this feature via the Hibernate ORM gradle plugin
Named Native queries
You could also decide to not map it and save/read it with a named native query. It seems a good trade off for a single attribute - it will just require an additional query to save the json.
Example:
#Entity
#Table(name = "MyEntity_table")
#NamedNativeQuery(
name = "write_json",
query = "update MyEntity_table set json_column = :json where id = :id")
#NamedNativeQuery(
name = "read_json",
query = "select json_column from MyEntity_table where id = :id")
class MyEntity {
....
}
Long id = ...
String jsonString = ...
session.createNamedQuery( "write_json" )
.setParameter( "id", id )
.setParameter( "json", jsonString )
.executeUpdate();
jsonString = (String)session.createNamedQuery( "read_json" )
.setParameter( "id", id )
.getSingleResult();
In this case, schema generation is not going to create the column, so you will need to add it manually (not a big deal, considering that there are better tools to update the schema in production).
MappedSuperclass
You can also have two entities extending the same superclass (this way you don't have to copy the attributes). They have to update the same table:
#MappedSuperclass
class MyEntity {
#Id
Long id;
String name
...
}
#Entity
#Table(name = "MyEntity_table")
class MyEntityWriter extends MyEntity {
String json
}
#Entity
#Table(name = "MyEntity_table")
class MyEntityReader extends MyEntity {
// No field is necessary here
}
Now you can use MyEntityWriter for saving all the values and MyEntityReader for loading only the values you need.
I think you will have some problems with schema generation if you try to create the tables because only one of the two will be created:
If MyEntityWriter is the first table created, then no problem
If MyEntityWriter is the second table created, the query will fail because the table already exist and the additional column won't be created.
I haven't tested this solution though, there might be something I haven't thought about.
I was trying to learn Spring Framework and ran into a problem with saving entities into CRUD Repository. I had few Entities with automatic numeric ID generation and they work just fine, but then I tried to make a class with String being a primary key just like this:
#Entity
#Table(name = "USERS")
#Builder
public class User {
#Id
#Column(name = "USER_NAME", nullable = false)
#Getter #Setter
private String name;
#Column(name = "USER_PASS", nullable = false)
#Getter #Setter
private String pass;
}
First I was getting exceptions about this class not having a default constructor:
org.springframework.orm.jpa.JpaSystemException: No default constructor for entity: : com.company.Model.User; nested exception is org.hibernate.InstantiationException: No default constructor for entity: : com.company.Model.User
Already weird, but still I decided to change #Builder annotation into 2 constructors, one with both arguments and second with none. I tried to save the entity instance into CRUD Repository userDAO (which is nothing more than interface extending CRUDRepository) by the typical test:
User admin = new User("admin", "6aDcZ72k");
...
#Test
public void saveUserAndFindById() {
admin = userDAO.save(admin);
assertThat(userDAO.findById(admin.getName())).isEqualTo(admin);
}
The result was assertion failed because the saved entity had "Optional" type:
org.junit.ComparisonFailure:
Expected :com.company.Model.User#2c06b113
Actual :Optional[com.company.Model.User#2c06b113]
I know I'm doing something really wrong but can't figure this out. Or maybe there is a way to just prevent making it optional? There must be few other entities with the reference on this class, but these references obviously don't work because of the above issue.
First of all,jpa require the entity has a No Arguments Constructor cause it will create a instance first and then populate it.The easiest way is to add #NoArgumentsConstructor that offered by lombok on the entity class.
And then,Optional is used by spring data jpa in order to avoid NullPointException and in fact it be is useful actually.If you want to use the interface that Spring-data-jpa offered,then you have to use Optional too.You cloud look here for more info about Optional:link1,link2
By the way,I usually use it like:
ExampleEntity example=exampleRepository.findById(id).orElseThrow(()->new ExampleNotFoundException());
In this way,you dont need to deal with Optional or think about NullPointException.
or:
ExampleEntity example=exampleRepository.findById(id).orElse(null);
In this way if you cant find the target entity,then it will be null.So dont forget to check if the entity is null.
Hope it could help~~~
It is not your save(...) that is returning Optional but userDAO.findById(admin.getName(). According to the documentation, CrudReposiotry provides a findById() whose return type is Optional<T>.
public interface CrudRepository<T, ID extends Serializable>
extends Repository<T, ID> {
Optional<T> findById(ID primaryKey);
}
If you do not want Optional as return type, You will need to provide your own method to do that. For example:
public interface PeronRepository extends CrudRepository<Person, String> {
Person findById(String personId);
}
I am currently trying to use inheritance within Hibernate and came across InheritanceType.JOINED. I like the idea of concentrating all data in one table and sharing IDs rather than having duplicate columns in all the sub type tables (#MappedSuperClass). But Hibernate automatically generates indexes on my sub class tables on the id column like FK_idx3wiwdm8yp2qkkddi726n8o everytime I initialize my Hibernate singleton. I noticed that by hitting the 64 key limit on my MySQL Table as the names are generated differently on every startup.
What is the proper way to handle this? Can this be fixed by annotations? What else could I try?
I know that there are countless similar Questions on SO but haven't been able to identify one solving my specific problem.
I am not going to disable hbm2ddl.auto during dev mode.
I am using MyISAM. There are no actual Foreign Keys. This is why Hibernate generates default indexes, I think. Anyway, the problem would be identical with InnoDB and real Foreign Keys as the names would still be quite random. Or maybe Hibernate would actually check for existence in this case. I don't really see, why it does not do this on MyISAM tables.
As I hit similar problems before, the solution could also be to specify a name for that single-column index. But how?
Super Class: FolderItem
#Entity
#Inheritance(strategy = InheritanceType.JOINED)
public abstract class FolderItem implements Comparable<FolderItem>
{
#Id
#GeneratedValue
protected int id;
protected String name;
#OneToOne
#ForeignKey(name = "fkParent")
protected Folder parent;
...
}
Sub Class: Folder
#Entity
public class Folder extends FolderItem
{
#OneToMany(mappedBy = "parent")
#OrderBy(value = "sortOrder")
private List<FolderItem> children;
...
}
What I tried
add #Index to FolderItem.id - this created an index on the FolderItem table as one would expect, but didn't affect the Folder table
copy protected int id; to Folder and tried to add an #Index to it, which resulted in an Exception similar to "duplicate definition of ID"
add #Table(appliesTo = "Folder", indexes = { #Index(name = "fkId", columnNames = { "id" }) }) to Folder class, which actually created my specified index as expected, but still created it's own FK_9xcia6idnwqdi9xx8ytea40h3 which is identical to mine, except for the name
Try #PrimaryKeyJoinColumn(name = "foler_item_id") annotation for Folder class.
What I want to accomplish but don't understand really how it works its
#Table(name = "Categories")
public class Category extends Model {
#Column(name = "Name")
private String name;
}
With this code I want to annotation generate their respective setter and getter so I can use like
Category category = new Category();
category.setName("My Name");
category.save();
Whey I need setter and getter and not access/edit the value directly? Because some values has different treatment, like relations, and because I want to have fields that don't want to be edited. And I'm too lazy to do manually all the time this, with every model, also save a lot of work later to just put an annotation and set their field
My inspiration to try this was Android Annotations seems a solid and cool library, I know maybe its too advanced but my goal with this experiment its to have a library like that but focused on models like active record or another orm.
Tuts, tips, advices, books are welcome.
Regards
Edit 2013-10-25
My goal is to build a library capable to do this, because I'm too curious and want to learn how internally work, so I'll be able to power my framework with this feature, as jet just are small utilities but in the future I hope it save me a lot of work, you can see at github WSD Android
If you are too lazy to create the setters and getters of your variables why not just let your IDE generate it for you?
but if you do really insist, take a look at this plugin
This simply allows you to do this
#Table(name = "Categories")
public class Category extends Model {
#Setter
#Getter
#Column(name = "Name")
private String name;
}
WARNING.
the plugin is not well documented, you also need to configure your IDE to actually see it(eg category.getName())
I use JPA and Hibernate for my project. I have two classes with same names but in different packages. They are:
#Entity(name = "X_USER")
#Table(name = "X_USER")
public class User {
and:
#Entity
#Table(name="Y_USER")
public class User {
I was creating a search query with: .getSimpleName() but it didn't work because their simple name are the same. I changed it to .getName().
However, it still confuses to which User to return.
EDIT:
I have that:
SELECT_BY_PROPERTY_QUERY = "SELECT p FROM :CLASS: p WHERE p.:PROPNAME:=?";
and I that:
SELECT_BY_PROPERTY_QUERY.replaceFirst(":CLASS:", clazz.getName()).replaceFirst(":PROPNAME:", propertyName);
and when I debug it it makes something like:
Select p from User p Where p.name=?
It is still User and it doesn't include package information and returns me wrong User class.
If you want to create a JPQL query you need to pass the Entity name to it. As you posted, you have 2 entities which are represented by the same Java class, but different Entity name (X_USER explicitly set by you and User set implicitly).
If you want to get dynamically the name of the entity you should rather use the Metamodel, so something like this should do the work (not checked):
EntityManager em = ...
Metamodel model = em.getEntityManagerFactory().getMetamodel();
String entityName = model.entity(com.your.pckg.User.class).getName();
HTH.