I haven't been able to find any good examples, or a direction to go for this. But essentially I want to be able to create a configurable object to object mapping interface. I don't want to hardcode the fields that should be mapped to one another, but rather give users an interface to be able to say fieldA from objectA maps to fieldB from objectB.
These configuration settings can be persisted in SQL, or an XML file, doesn't really matter to me. This is a Spring Boot application.
I was using Orika for the mapping currently, but I don't know how to make it configurable. Am I on the right track, or does it not have that capability? Would a CustomMapper be what I need to do? Looking for some good examples, or the right direction.
You can give Dozer a try. It provides full automation of mapping process and allows handling of complicated mapping cases. Usually, all this flexibility comes at a price of reduced performance, but is maybe good enough in your case.
Mappings are usually set using XML files. In later versions, Dozer also supports mappings via API and via Annotations. Check their website for more info. Dozer also has a Spring framework integration.
Related
I'm new to Spring and DI in general. But from what I have read, DI affords you the ability to swap out implementations very easily using frameworks like Spring. I can understand value there when it comes to XML bean configuration because code doesn't need to be changed at all for accomplishing switchable implementations. But if we're using annotations like #Autowired or #Qualifier...we would need to change the code. So why do we want to use annotations over XML-based configuration?
This was actually a topic of lively conversation around the time that Spring 3.0 came out in 2009 and JavaConfig was added to the core system base.
In theory, being able to externalize application setup is a great thing. However, it turns out that in practice there are two distinct groups of setup choices: the application shape or dependency graph, and particular values like API keys, database connection strings, and so on that vary between environment but usually don't change the way that the beans are wired.
Experience has shown that the dependency graph, which is essentially what you'd express in XML, is almost never changed without also making changes to the accompanying implementation code anyway, so there is very little real-world benefit to defining the graph in XML. On the other hand, writing #Bean methods in Java means that it's a lot easier to test configuration when needed, the compiler can ensure type safety, and decision logic (such as conditionals) are simpler to implement.
Furthermore, the availability of annotations means that it's possible to extend the domain-specific language for configuration fairly easily in Java--just create a new annotation and its accompanying processor (such as #ConditionalOnProperty); Spring Boot itself is an extreme example of the flexibility of this model. In XML, on the other hand, injecting new tags or attributes into a schema is a lot more of a hassle.
There are times when XML may still be the better choice (I've particularly gone with it for writing out Spring Integration pipelines, which can be easier to read in XML than in the Java DSL), but the real-world benefits turned out not to be all that valuable in most cases, and the safety and flexibility of configuration as code has won out.
This is not must, you have to choices to use Annotations or XML its up to you but Annotations is easy to use, faster and more readable than configurations, and when you use it you will find all the information in a single file, but it also have disadvantages.
Annotations preferable
Use Annotations in anything that is stable and defines the core
structure of the application. Anything that would need a code change
is okay to sit as an annotation.
I recommended you to read the following links for more info :
xml-configuration-versus-annotation-based-configuration
spring-framework-xml-vs-annotations
I'm writing an application with Spring MVC which I'd like to be configurable with properties files. I looked into Spring's util namespace and found this:
<util:properties id="MyProperties" location="propertiesPath" />
with this, I can annotate my classes field simply with
#Value("myProperty")
and have the property simply injected. So, it's very simple to read your properties. But when you have to save them, it's not as intuitive.
I've stumbled upon quite a few questions on how to do it properly and I think this represents best what I want to say: Updating a properties file injected by Spring to include a last run timestamp.
My question is: why it's so difficult to save properties in Spring? Am I doing it the wrong way? At this point I am even wondering if saving properties this way is a good practice or if I should use a database.
From Oracle I can read:
The Properties class represents a persistent set of properties. The Properties can be saved to a stream or loaded from a stream.
But Spring seems to make easier only one of them. Please enlighten me.
Thank you.
Spring is largely involved in creating the static, unchanging, structure of your application, and not really involved in transaction processing or business-logic. Often it defines how transactions are to be processed, but it isn't usually involved in the processing itself. We often talk about the separation of the domain model and the architecture -- spring is about architecture.
Writing something out to a store of some kind, say properties to a disk file, is transactional logic (even if you don't need an explicit transaction to do it). It would be one of the end-user features of your system, not part of the architecture -- it would be a feature (even if the end user, in this case, is a sys-admin). Spring has little support for this type of behaviour -- just as it has little support for storing information regarding dynamic changes to the application context.
Using properties like this supposed it read-only. If you need some managing with it, you should better write you custom service with pure java properties handling http://www.mkyong.com/java/java-properties-file-examples/
In my project, i'm using dozer mapping via XML. But my project teams asking me to use Mapping via API. They claim that mapping via API will be faster than XML , as mapping via api is compiled code already.
Kindly help me understand whether this mapping via API is really faster than mapping via XML.
I think your team may be missing the point. Remember that all you are doing when you are supplying either XML or API mapping to Dozer is configuring it. You're not actually mapping anything at config time, and configuration usually only happens once at application startup.
Once configured, both approaches use the same reflection based engine to do the grunt work of the actual mapping using a call like this (amongst other options):
DestinationObject destObject = mapper.map(sourceObject, DestinationObject.class);
If you're really concerned about mapping performance; then map manually with gets/sets.
I'm currently searching for a really easy way to get simple Java Objects persistent in Databases and/or XML and/or other types of data stores.
For big projects in the company i would use hibernate, ibatis, datanucleus or something like that. But with small private projects this will take over 80% of the worktime.
I also found "simpleORM" but this one requires to code data-related stuff pretty hardly into the data-model classes. I don't really like that style so this is no option for me.
Do you have a suggestion for some library which simply takes my objects and saves / loads them as they are or with very little configuration?
You could try my ORMLite library, which was designed as a simple replacement for hibernate and iBatis. I'm the main author. It supports a number of JDBC databases and has an Android backend. Here is the getting started section of the manual which has some code examples. Here also are working examples of simple usage patterns.
Try Norm. It's a lightweight layer over JDBC. It adds almost zero overhead to JDBC calls and is very easy to learn.
You could just serialize your objects into a file/database whatsoever.
If you want to define the mapping then you'd have to go for more configuration and the standard OR mappers out there (like Hibernate) don't really add that much on top.
You could try xstream. It's really simple OXM library working without upfront configuration.
Sample code:
XStream xstream = new XStream();
// marshalling
String xml = xstream.toXML(domainObject);
// unmarshalling
domainObject = xstream.fromXML(xml);
For relational database persistence try one of the JPA implementations, such as OpenJPA.
The setup overhead is minimal. You can let JPA to create your schema & tables for your from your object definitions, so you don't need to hand crank any sql. All you need to supply is some annotations on your entities and a single config file, persistence.xml.
You can also use jEasyORM (http://jeasyorm.sourceforge.net/).
In most cases it automatically maps objects to database tables with no need for configuration.
You may want to consider www.sormula.org. Minimal programming/annotations and simple learning curve. It uses standard SQL and JDBC so will work with any relational db.
U could try SnakeORM http://sourceforge.net/p/selibs/wiki/Home/
It doesnt have many runtime dependencies, uses JPA annotations and follows DAO pattern.
Disclosure: I am the author of this project
Well if you want an ORM, then that implies that you want to map objects to tables, columns to fields etc. In this case, if you want to avoid the hassle of bigger ORM implementations, you could just use plain old JDBC, with simple DataAccessor patterns. But then this does not translated to XML directly.
If you want to just persist the object somewhere, and only care about "understanding" the object in Java, then serialization is a simple effective method, as Thomas mentioned earlier.
You could also try my little ORM library, Java2DB. I created it specifically for small projects that just want quick and easy access to their database. Check it out on GitHub.
Onyx Database is a very feature rich Java NoSQL database alternative. It's pure java with several persisting modes (caching, embedded-database, save-to-remote, and save-to-remote-cluster. It has an embedded ORM, and is probably the easiest persistence API I've used.
When I look at Java frameworks like Hibernate, JPA, or Spring, I usually have the possibility to make my configuration via an xml-file or put annotations directly in my classes.
I am cosistently asking myself what way should I go.
When I use annotations, I have the class and its configuration together but with an xml I get a bigger picture of my system because I can see all class-configurations.
Annotations also get compiled in some way I guess and it should be quicker than parsing the xml, but on the other hand, if I want to change my configuration I have to recompile it instead of just changing the xml file (which might become even more handy for production environments on customer side).
So, when looking at my points, I tend to go the xml-way. But when looking at forums or tutorials usually annotations are used.
What are your pros and cons?
A good rule of thumb: anything you can see yourself wanting to change without a full redeploy (e.g. tweaking performance parameters) should really go in something "soft-configurable" such as an XML file. Anything which is never realistically going to change - or only in the sort of situation where you'll be having to change the code anyway - can reasonably be in an annotation.
Ignore any ideas of performance differences between annotations and XML - unless your configuration is absolutely massive the difference will be insignificant.
Concentrate on flexibility and readability.
If you're writing an API, then a word of warning: Annotations can leak out into your public interface which can be unbelievably infuriating.
I'm currently working with APIs where the API vendor has peppered his implementation with Spring MBean annotations, which suddenly means I have a dependency upon the Spring libraries, despite the possibility I might not need to use Spring at all :(
(Of course, if your API was an extension to Spring itself, this might be a valid assumption.)
I think the decision comes down to 'lifecycle', and impedance mismatch between lifecycles.
Lifecycle: Every piece of data, whether its source code, a database row, a compiled class, an object, has a lifecycle associated with it. When does it come into existence and when is it garbage collected?
Suppose I put Hibernate annotations on a Java class. Seems like a reasonable idea, especially if I am creating a new database from scratch and am confident that only this one application will ever connect to it - the lifecycles of my classes, the database schema and the ORM mapping are naturally in sync.
Now suppose I want to use that same class in an API and give it to some third party to consume. The Hibernate annotations leak into my API. This happens because the lifecycle of that class and the database are not the same thing. So we end up using mapping tools to translate between layers of beans in a system.
I try to think about lifecycles and that annotations that can cause lifecycle mismatches should be avoided. Some annotations are relatively harmless in this respect, and some are a hidden danger.
Examples of bad annotations: ORM mapping, database configuration, hard coded config for items that may vary between deployment environments, validations that may vary depending on context.
Examples of harmless annotations: REST endpoint definitions, JSON/XML serialization, validations that always apply.