I am starting with a new project and currently evaluating whether to use JPA or JDBC. Our operations mostly are going to be an bulk-insert and bulk-read and very rarely single insert/read.
I checked a prototype with JPA and JDBC and realized that both has its own merits and limitations.
Considering the current use case that for a fact I will only have always a bulk read and bulk write, which one will be a better option to go with ?
Spring JPA Repository gives a simple method save(Collection) which can take a collection and save as well.
Also Validations are also not be considered here, as the payload will already be validated in the layers above and the database layer should just do the read/write operations.
Does the JPA save(Collection<>) method in turn uses the jdbc templates or is it entirely a different implementation ?
Thanks in advance !
We use both JPA and JDBC in one application wiht no problem. Preferably we use JPA/JPQL and fall back to JDBC if needed. For JPA we use Spring Data JPA and for JDBC Spring JDBC Template.
Related
Background: I am working on a web application, which uses oracle jdbc and access database with java code and also sql queries which will be executed by our engine.
Now I am thinking about "replacing" jdbc over the time with hibernate t have -let's say - hibernate advantages.
My question is, can this be done step by step?
Can I start to create new tables with hibernate and work with hibernate without having risk with the existing database structure? can hibernate works in parallel with jdbc?
The answer is positive.
You can have both jdbc and hibernate data-sources in the same project, no problem.
Just be careful not to mix up those two data-sources, that's all.
Yes, JDBC and hibernate both can be used in parallel.
However, it depends on use cases. As per your question you just want to "replace" JDBC with Hibernate.
So, yes in this case you can start with :
creating new tables
creating hibernate mapping files
creating DAO layer
implementing hibernate code.
What are the main differences between Hibernate and Spring Data JPA?
When should we not use Hibernate or Spring Data JPA?
Also, when may Spring JDBC template perform better than Hibernate and Spring Data JPA?
Hibernate is a JPA implementation, while Spring Data JPA is a JPA data access abstraction. Spring Data JPA cannot work without a JPA provider.
Spring Data offers a solution to the DDD Repository pattern or the legacy GenericDao custom implementations. It can also generate JPA queries on your behalf through method name conventions.
With Spring Data, you may use Hibernate, EclipseLink, or any other JPA provider. A very interesting benefit of using Spring or Java EE is that you can control transaction boundaries declaratively using the #Transactional annotation.
Spring JDBC is much more lightweight, and it's intended for native querying, and if you only intend to use JDBC alone, then you are better off using Spring JDBC to deal with the JDBC verbosity.
Therefore, Hibernate and Spring Data are complementary rather than competitors.
There are 3 different things we are using here :
JPA : Java persistence api which provide specification for persisting, reading, managing data from your java object to relations in database.
Hibernate: There are various provider which implement jpa. Hibernate is one of them. So we have other provider as well. But if using jpa with spring it allows you to switch to different providers in future.
Spring Data JPA : This is another layer on top of jpa which spring provide to make your life easy.
So lets understand how spring data jpa and spring + hibernate works-
Spring Data JPA:
Let's say you are using spring + hibernate for your application. Now you need to have dao interface and implementation where you will be writing crud operation using SessionFactory of hibernate. Let say you are writing dao class for Employee class, tomorrow in your application you might need to write similiar crud operation for any other entity. So there is lot of boilerplate code we can see here.
Now Spring data jpa allow us to define dao interfaces by extending its repositories(crudrepository, jparepository) so it provide you dao implementation at runtime. You don't need to write dao implementation anymore.Thats how spring data jpa makes your life easy.
I disagree SpringJPA makes live easy. Yes, it provides some classes and you can make some simple DAO fast, but in fact, it's all you can do.
If you want to do something more than findById() or save, you must go through hell:
no EntityManager access in org.springframework.data.repository classes (this is basic JPA class!)
own transaction management (hibernate transactions disallowed)
huge problems with more than one datasources configuration
no datasource pooling (HikariCP must be in use as third party library)
Why own transaction management is an disadvantage? Since Java 1.8 allows default methods into interfaces, Spring annotation based transactions, simple doesn't work.
Unfortunately, SpringJPA is based on reflections, and sometimes you need to point a method name or entity package into annotations (!). That's why any refactoring makes big crash.
Sadly, #Transactional works for primary DS only :( So, if you have more than one DataSources, remember - transactions works just for primary one :)
What are the main differences between Hibernate and Spring Data JPA?
Hibernate is JPA compatibile, SpringJPA Spring compatibile. Your HibernateJPA DAO can be used with JavaEE or Hibernate Standalone, when SpringJPA can be used within Spring - SpringBoot for example
When should we not use Hibernate or Spring Data JPA? Also, when may Spring JDBC template perform better than Hibernate / Spring Data JPA?
Use Spring JDBC only when you need to use much Joins or when you need to use Spring having multiple datasource connections. Generally, avoid JPA for Joins.
But my general advice, use fresh solution—Daobab (http://www.daobab.io).
Daobab is my Java and any JPA engine integrator, and I believe it will help much in your tasks :)
Spring Data is a convenience library on top of JPA that abstracts away many things and brings Spring magic (like it or not) to the persistence store access. It is primarily used for working with relational databases. In short, it allows you to declare interfaces that have methods like findByNameOrderByAge(String name); that will be parsed in runtime and converted into appropriate JPA queries.
Its placement atop of JPA makes its use tempting for:
Rookie developers who don't know SQL or know it badly. This is a
recipe for disaster but they can get away with it if the project is trivial.
Experienced engineers who know what they do and want to spindle up things
fast. This might be a viable strategy (but read further).
From my experience with Spring Data, its magic is too much (this is applicable to Spring in general). I started to use it heavily in one project and eventually hit several corner cases where I couldn't get the library out of my way and ended up with ugly workarounds. Later I read other users' complaints and realized that these issues are typical for Spring Data. For example, check this issue that led to hours of investigation/swearing:
public TourAccommodationRate createTourAccommodationRate(
#RequestBody TourAccommodationRate tourAccommodationRate
) {
if (tourAccommodationRate.getId() != null) {
throw new BadRequestException("id MUST NOT be specified in a body during entry creation");
}
// This is an ugly hack required for the Room slim model to work. The problem stems from the fact that
// when we send a child entity having the many-to-many (M:N) relation to the containing entity, its
// information is not fetched. As a result, we get NPEs when trying to access all but its Id in the
// code creating the corresponding slim model. By detaching the entity from the persistence context we
// force the ORM to re-fetch it from the database instead of taking it from the cache
tourAccommodationRateRepository.save(tourAccommodationRate);
entityManager.detach(tourAccommodationRate);
return tourAccommodationRateRepository.findOne(tourAccommodationRate.getId());
}
I ended up going lower level and started using JDBI - a nice library with just enough "magic" to save you from the boilerplate. With it, you have complete control over SQL queries and almost never have to fight the library.
If you prefer simplicity and more control on SQL queries then I would suggest going with Spring Data/ Spring JDBC.
Its good amount of learning curve in JPA and sometimes difficult to debug issues.
On the other hand, while you have full control over SQL, it becomes much easier to optimize query and improve performance. You can easily share your SQL with DBA or someone who has a better understanding of Database.
Hibernate is implementation of "JPA" which is a specification for Java objects in Database.
I would recommend to use w.r.t JPA as you can switch between different ORMS.
When you use JDBC then you need to use SQL Queries, so if you are proficient in SQL then go for JDBC.
I am learning Java EE and I downloaded the eclipse with glassfish for the same. I saw some examples and also read the Oracle docs to know all about Java EE 5. Connecting to a database was very simple. I opened a dynamic web project, created a session EJB , I used EntityManager and with the get methods could access the stored data table.
For my next project I had create a simple class and then access some DB table. The very first problem I encountered was that the PersistenceUnit attribute would only be recognized by EJB,Servlet etc and not a simple java class. So then I could not use the EntityManager way(or can I?)
I was asked to go via the "JDBC" way. The very first problem I encountered was to get the connection to the DB. It seems all this must be hardcoded. I had a persistence.xml with which I could easily configure the data base connection. Even setting up a driver for the DB was easy. Also there no get/set methods in the JDBC for accessing table entities.
How do I understand JPA and persistence in relation to JDBC? What was JPA thought for? Why is there set/get methods? Can someone throw some light on the essence of these two and what are the pros/cons without "jargons"?? Please also suggest some links. A simple google search for JPA and JDBC differences led me to some sites full of "terminology" I couldn't follow :(
In layman's terms:
JDBC is a standard for Database Access
JPA is a standard for ORM
JDBC is a standard for connecting to a DB directly and running SQL against it - e.g SELECT * FROM USERS, etc. Data sets can be returned which you can handle in your app, and you can do all the usual things like INSERT, DELETE, run stored procedures, etc. It is one of the underlying technologies behind most Java database access (including JPA providers).
One of the issues with traditional JDBC apps is that you can often have some crappy code where lots of mapping between data sets and objects occur, logic is mixed in with SQL, etc.
JPA is a standard for Object Relational Mapping. This is a technology which allows you to map between objects in code and database tables. This can "hide" the SQL from the developer so that all they deal with are Java classes, and the provider allows you to save them and load them magically. Mostly, XML mapping files or annotations on getters and setters can be used to tell the JPA provider which fields on your object map to which fields in the DB. The most famous JPA provider is Hibernate, so it's a good place to start for concrete examples.
Other examples include OpenJPA, toplink, etc.
Under the hood, Hibernate and most other providers for JPA write SQL and use JDBC to read and write from and to the DB.
Main difference between JPA and JDBC is level of abstraction.
JDBC is a low level standard for interaction with databases. JPA is higher level standard for the same purpose. JPA allows you to use an object model in your application which can make your life much easier. JDBC allows you to do more things with the Database directly, but it requires more attention. Some tasks can not be solved efficiently using JPA, but may be solved more efficiently with JDBC.
JDBC is a much lower-level (and older) specification than JPA. In it's bare essentials, JDBC is an API for interacting with a database using pure SQL - sending queries and retrieving results. It has no notion of objects or hierarchies. When using JDBC, it's up to you to translate a result set (essentially a row/column matrix of values from one or more database tables, returned by your SQL query) into Java objects.
Now, to understand and use JDBC it's essential that you have some understanding and working knowledge of SQL. With that also comes a required insight into what a relational database is, how you work with it and concepts such as tables, columns, keys and relationships. Unless you have at least a basic understanding of databases, SQL and data modelling you will not be able to make much use of JDBC since it's really only a thin abstraction on top of these things.
JDBC is the predecessor of JPA.
JDBC is a bridge between the Java world and the databases world. In JDBC you need to expose all dirty details needed for CRUD operations, such as table names, column names, while in JPA (which is using JDBC underneath), you also specify those details of database metadata, but with the use of Java annotations.
So JPA creates update queries for you and manages the entities that you looked up or created/updated (it does more as well).
If you want to do JPA without a Java EE container, then Spring and its libraries may be used with the very same Java annotations.
The difference between JPA and JDBC is often the deciding factor, as the two database technologies take very different approaches to work with persistent data. JDBC, allows developers to construct database-driven Java programs utilizing object-oriented semantics
JPA is database-agnostic, meaning that the same code can be used in a variety of databases with few modifications. JPA serves as a layer of abstraction that hides the low-level JDBC calls from the developer, making database coding considerably easier
hibernate is implementation of JPA
hibernate you can see further details from here about jpa Query
JDBC is a layer of abstraction on top of vendor-specific relational DB drivers. Without JDBC you would have to deal with peculiarities of a specific DB (not much fun). JDBC, however, is too low-level and entails a lot of boilerplate code.
JPA is a specification of an ORM (just an interface). It's useless without an implementation.
ORM is a kind of framework concerned with saving and retrieving objects to/from the relational DB. There are many ORMs out there with different levels of abstraction. Some of them require manually-written SQL.
Some of ORMs implement JPA (Hibernate or EclipseLink, for example). Most of them are built on top of JDBC.
Such ORMs provide the maximum level of abstraction to the point you almost never have to write SQL queries. Some people love JPA-based ORMs (they reduce boilerplate), some hate (abstraction is leaky, specification is overly complex and there are lots of corner cases).
Java analogy:
class ORM extends JDBC implements JPA {
}
Persistence layers have protocols versions so abstractions also have versions therefore you need ranges of supported versions. It is version hell
Stepwise, what would be a good way of integrating Spring and Hibernate into an existing JSF application that doesn't use ORM?
1) You would need to design the domain model first and then map it to the database. You could use hibernate reverse engineering tools for this.
2) Other option is to manually map your current objects(DTO) to database tables. Since you use JSF, I assume you'd be having some objects currently.
3) Design the Service Layer around the objects.
Spring -
1) You could use Spring to provide hibernate template, provide common services through bean.
2) You can manage the transaction in Spring.
I would recommend first to write tests to check your code of your previous persistent mechanism. This code could be used to check the correct behavior of our ORM integration.
As mentioned by other answers, having a clear DAO defined by interface helps to bound the DAO code.
Map the domain objects first, then write your DAO, then your service objects (which take care of large atomic suite of operations by enclosing its in a transaction).
Use persistence mechanism which is vendor-agnostic (JPA is the good and only choice).
Start with one kind of database and stick with it during all the migration. In very uncommon cases, you can meet subtle differences between databases which could be very hard to solve, especially if you're a beginner.
When starting, use automatic generation of database (generateDdl for hibernate subsystem) and then, when things starts to be stabilized, force #Table and #Column annotations to fix name of each column. At this point, write a SQL script which generate the database with empty tables. The reason if to fix your architecture and be sure you're controlling the database organization.
If you're serious about ORM, please look at Java Persistence With Hibernate of Christian Bauer (Manning publications), this is "the bible" about hibernate and JPA on Java.
If you've written Spring properly, you should have DAO/repository interfaces. If that's the case, all you have to do is write a new implementation of that interface using Hibernate, test it, and change your Spring configuration to inject it.
ORM presumes that you have an object model in place to map to a relational schema. If you don't, I would advise against using ORM. Better to use iBatis or JDBC in that case.
We've been implementing Hibernate recently as a replacement for JDBC.
What I like is not having to constantly write SELECT, UPDATE, INSERT statements and the associated PreparedStatement and ResultSet code.
However we've been struggling with random bizarre behavior (example A) which I find hard to understand and resolve due to all the different configuration/feature options and the associated Hibernate behavior. I find some of the features like caching, lazy loading, etc, etc very cool but way more than I need - and ultimately confusing.
Is there a better middle ground for someone just looking to avoid the tediousness of JDBC but who doesn't need all the features of Hibernate?
not completely avoiding jdbc, but ... my suggestion is to use the jbdc support provided by spring framework. You still need to write your select, update and inserts, but spring nicely wraps it so you usually don't care about the result set, closing connections, cleaning up your code and such.
Have a look at this chapter from the spring documentations to see the details. You can create an entire dao layer that appears just like the hibernate dao layer, but the internal implementation is different. The RowMapper interface lets you handle the conversion from result sets to objects very nicely. Overall it provides a clean separation of concerns.
(another alternative is to use iBATIS for lightweight O/R mapping, or at least to keep your sql queries outside of Java code).
How about using Hibernate (or TopLink) as a JPA provider. IMO I find the JPA annotation-based approach to doing ORM a lot easier to understand / implement than Hibernate directly - and you can always drop down and do 'difficult' stuff with Hibernate directly.