I was trying to find an answer but, unfortunately, with no luck.
The data structure looks like this:
TABLE_X - contains userId, also userType telling if this is external or internal user
INTERNAL_USERS - contains key userId
EXTERNAL_USERS - also contains key userId
TABLE_X.userId is either INTERNAL_USERS.userId or EXTERNAL_USERS.userId.
Now, I would like to map an entity out of TABLE_X and have user object mapped to correct entity, either INTERNAL_USERS or EXTERNAL_USERS.
How should I do this?
Should I create two fields and map one to INTERNAL_USERS and one two EXTERNAL_USERS and just see which one is not empty?
If I understand correctly your question, what you have to do is to replicate structure of the TABLE_X columns with fields on the TABLE_X class, and add to fields one for INTERNAL_USERS.userID and one for EXTERNAL_USERS.userID
But if you store on TABLE_X.userType if a user is internal or external, I think that the best thing you can do is not create any other table, because you just have the information you need on your first table (TABLE_X). If you want to know all the users that are internal for instance, just do a SQL and select all the values from TABLE_X where userType = "Internal"
Use Hibernate inheritance. Check out the Table per class inheritance pattern. Here you have both INTERNAL_USERS or EXTERNAL_USERS data in TABLE_X with userType as the discriminator column.
http://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/stable/annotations/reference/en/html_single/#d0e1191
Given the table structure, you can use JPA Inheritance as detailed here:
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Java_Persistence/Inheritance#Example_joined_inheritance_annotations
In Hibernate you can model such relationships as follows. When querying for a User you can then rely on Hibernate to return an instance of the correct type.
#Entity
#Inheritance(strategy=InheritanceType.JOINED)
public class User{
#Id
private Long userId;
}
#Entity
public class InternalUser extends User{
}
#Entity
public class ExternalUser extends User{
}
As noted in the article linked to, Hibernate does not require a discriminator column to be specified when using joined inheritance. It does however support a discriminator column if one is available. As you have one available in your schema - userType - then you could explicitly specify it if you wish. I imagine this would yield some performance benefit in terms of the generated SQL:
Mappings with optional discriminator column:
#Entity
#Inheritance(strategy=InheritanceType.JOINED)
#DiscriminatorColumn(name="userType")
public class User{
#Id
private Long userId;
}
#Entity
#DiscriminatorValue("INT")
public class InternalUser extends User{
}
#Entity
#DiscriminatorValue("EXT")
public class ExternalUser extends User{
}
Related
In C# we are using an ORM that lets us specify in each child/Sub Class where we want to store it:
[MapInheritance(MapInheritanceType.ParentTable)] //this means that store employee specific fields in person table
public partial class Employee: Person
{}
I want to use the same in Java side,But in Hibernate we specify strategy in parent Class .We have following structure: enter image description here
I don't want a table for base class.I'd like to store person & employee in user table. and customer in its own table.
But it seems that hibernate has shortcoming in this regard and asks for one hierarchy policy for all branch. I want to be able to change policy in lower branches.
How is it possible to implement this in jpa or hibernate?
You can do that using #MappedSuperclass
One #MappedSuperclass or multiple #MappedSuperclass are allowed in same inheritance hierarchy.
#MappedSuperclass
public class FirstMapped {
#Id int id;
}
#MappedSuperclass
public class SecondMapped extends FirstMapped {
String createdOn;
}
#Entity
public class MyTable extends SecondMapped {
String myColumn;
}
These classes must create just one table: MyTable with columns:
id
createdOn
myColumn
I have 2 tables S and I on the database (with a 1:1 relationship), they both have the same id as pk and the hibernate classes I've created are like these:
#Entity
#Inheritance(strategy = InheritanceType.JOINED)
public class S {
#Id
#Column(name = "id")
#GeneratedValue(...)
#SequenceGenerator...
private long id;
....
}
#Entity
#PrimaryKeyJoinColumn(name = "id")
public class I extends S {
....
}
Because of historical reasons, in the database there are objects of type S but not the associated objects of type I. I want to create those I type objects using hibernate. How can I do that? Can I create an I type object from an left join HQL query like this?
select i from I i right join i.id s where s.id = :id
If I try to create a new I entity (new I()) and then persist it, I only managed to get some exceptions as it tries to create an already existing S record. I can't do a simple read/load for I entity as I record does not exist yet. How can I do to create this missing I part entity?
PS I will adjust the question if you point me the unclear things
One approach that will certainly work for you (while is isn't clean one) is to create I records with SQL inserts directly: insert into I_table values (...).
When there are corresponding records in I_table, ORM will start load your objects with I type.
If you have to stay with your ORM and you can delete S records then you can
Load S by id
Delete S (flush? based on your flush mode)
Create I
Copy S values into I
Save I
What you're trying to create is an entity hierarchy. So have to map the entities correctly. The following is probably what you need:
#Entity
#Inheritance(strategy = InheritanceType.JOINED)
#DiscriminatorColumn(discriminatorType = DiscriminatorType.CHAR)
#DiscriminatorValue("S")
public class S {
#Id
//........
private long id;
....
}
#Entity
#DiscriminatorValue("I")
public class I extends S {
....
}
With this setting the table S will contain a column named DTYPE (for discriminator type) which identifies whether a row belongs to S or I; this is the default; if you don't want that you have to give a name for the DiscriminatorColumn annotation.
Create an instance of S and save
Create an instance of 'I' by populating the inherited properties (i.e., the properties of S) and its own properties, and save.
When you create a query targeting I, you'll get only instances of I, but if your query targets the S, you'll get instances of both entities.
I am working on a Maven Java web project based on Spring, JPA and Hibernate.
One part of this project shall be reused in another very similar project and gets therefore extracted as Maven module. This service and the corresponding entity are annotated like this:
#Service
public class MessageService
#Entity
public class Message
Both projects have similar but slightly different UserEntities.
#Entity
public class TypeAUser
#Entity
public class TypeBUser
The Message Entity has #OneToMany relationship to one of the UserEntities in each project.
I thought about a generic UserEntity but want to avoid creating additional tables as well as tables with fields of the "other" project.
Any ideas are appreciated.
Best regards,
Stefan
If you don't want to create additional tables, then you might want to consider using SINGLE_TABLE strategy.
#Entity
#Inheritance(strategy=InheritanceType.SINGLE_TABLE)
public class UserEntity {
...
}
#Entity
public class TypeAUser extends UserEntity {
...
}
#Entity
public class TypeBUser extends UserEntity {
...
}
Well, when talking about Inheritance in Hibernate, you have three options:
Table per concrete class with unions
Table per class hierarchy(Single Table Strategy)
Table per subclass
Since you want to achieve it with one table, I suggest using option 2.
You need just a User table, with a USER_TYPE column to discriminate the user types ( Can be a number, varchar2, etc)
Then you need to create a class User with the following annotations:
You can specify a DiscriminatorColumn if you want, otherwise Hibernate will default to '{className}_TYPE
#Inheritance(strategy=InheritanceType.SINGLE_TABLE)
#DiscriminatorColumn(name="USER_TYPE", discriminatorType=DiscriminatorType.STRING)
public class User { .... }
In your concrete class implementations you can specify a Discriminator value (or if you don't, hibernate will default it to the class name ('TypeAUser'/ 'TypeBUser')
#Entity
#DiscriminatorValue('A')
public class TypeAUser
#Entity
#DiscriminatorValue('B')
public class TypeBUser
In our company we have a strange database model which can't be modified because to many systems works with them. Up to know we have a straight java application which connects with hibernate to the database and loads the data. We have for each table one xml mapping file.
The strange thing about the database is that we do not have any primary keys. Most table have a unique index containing several columns.
Now we want to use an application server (jboss) and the ejb model. So I created a class like this:
#Entity
#Table (name = "eakopf_t")
public class Eakopf implements Serializable {
#Embeddable
public static class EakopfId implements Serializable {
private String mandant;
private String fk_eakopf_posnr;
// I removed here the getters and setters to shorten it up
}
#Id
private EakopfId id;
private String login;
// I removed the getters and setters here as well
}
This works perfect.
Because our customers have different versions of the database schema I thought about extending this class on each database release change. So each interface we create with java can decide which version of the table will be used.
Here is the extended table class
#Entity
#Table (name = "eakopf_t")
public class Eakopf6001 extends Eakopf implements Serializable {
private String newField;
// getters and setters
}
If I use Eakopf (the base version) it is working if I do something like that:
EakopfId id = new EakopfId();
id.setMandant("001");
id.setFk_eakopf_posnr("ABC");
Eakopf kopf = (Eakopf) em.find(Eakopf.class, id);
But if I do this:
EakopfId id = new EakopfId();
id.setMandant("001");
id.setFk_eakopf_posnr("ABC");
Eakopf6001 kopf = (Eakopf6001) em.find(Eakopf6001.class, id);
this exception occues
javax.ejb.EJBException: javax.persistence.PersistenceException:
org.hibernate.WrongClassException: Object with id:
de.entity.Eakopf$EakopfId#291bfe83 was not of the specified subclass:
de.entity.Eakopf (Discriminator: null)
Does anybody has an idea?
many greetings,
Hauke
Doing what you did means to Hibernate that you're storing two different kinds of entities in a single table. This is possible is you use a discriminator column. But if I understand correctly, you just want one kind of entity in the table : Eakopf6001. In this case, its base class should be annotated with #MappedSuperClass, not with #Entity.
I would suggest creating a class annotated with #MappedEntity (let's call it BaseEakopf), and two entities: EaKopf and EaKopf6001, each with their set of additional fields. Include one of the other of the entities in the list of mapped classes, depending on which one you want to use.
My personal opinion is that if you have multiple versions of your app, they should use the same entities, but with different fields. Your version control system would take care of these multiple versions, rather than your source code (i.e. have one set of source files per version of the app, rather than one single set of source files for all the possible versions).
I am looking for a way to have a typesafe primary key for my entities using generics in Hibernate. Instead of doing this
#Entity
public class User{
#PrimaryKey
Long id
}
I was thinking of doing this...
#Entity
public class User{
#PrimaryKey
PrimaryKey<User,Long> id
}
Or take the type inference even further...
Any ideas? Has anybody ever tried this before? Would you do this by making your class PrimaryKey embeddable?
#Entity
public class User extends MyEntity<Long>//Primary key type{
#PrimaryKey
PrimaryKey<User> id;
}
While it is possible to use a PK class and to use it as a member of entities with the #EmbeddedId, this would typically make all your JQL queries and your Java code more verbose:
select a.addressKey.id from Address a
or
AddressKey addressKey = new AddressKey();
addressKey.setCountry("USA");
addressKey.setId(634);
Address a = entityManager.find(Address.class, addressKey);
So I would personally use this for a real composite key (i.e. not with a single attribute) only.
Actually, I'm really wondering what problem you are trying to solve because at the end, you will have to deal with a Long anyway. I don't really see the added value of a single attribute typesafe primary key.
If you are looking for a typesafe way to identify an entity, what about using its LazyLoadingProxy?