Develop Reference

Rails application, but all data layer is using a json/xml based web service

I have a web service layer that is written in Java/Jersey, and it serves JSON.
For the front-end of the application, I want to use Rails.
How should I go about building my models?
Should I do something like this?
response = api_client.get_user(123)
User user = User.new(response)
What is the best approach to mapping the JSON to the Ruby object?
What options do I have? Since this is a critical part, I want to know my options, because performance is a factor. This, along with mapping JSON to a Ruby object and going from Ruby object => JSON, is a common occurance in the application.
Would I still be able to make use of validations? Or wouldn't it make sense since I would have validation duplicated on the front-end and the service layer?

Models in Rails do not have to do database operation, they are just normal classes. Normally they are imbued with ActiveRecord magic when you subclass them from ActiveRecord::Base.
You can use a gem such as Virtus that will give you models with attributes. And for validations you can go with Vanguard. If you want something close to ActiveRecord but without the database and are running Rails 3+ you can also include ActiveModel into your model to get attributes and validations as well as have them working in forms. See Yehuda Katz's post for details on that.
In your case it will depend on the data you will consume. If all the datasources have the same basic format for example you could create your own base class to keep all the logic that you want to share across the individual classes (inheritance).
If you have a few different types of data coming in you could create modules to encapsulate behavior for the different types and include the models you need in the appropriate classes (composition).
Generally though you probably want to end up with one class per resource in the remote API that maps 1-to-1 with whatever domain logic you have. You can do this in many different ways, but following the method naming used by ActiveRecord might be a good idea, both since you learn ActiveRecord while building your class structure and it will help other Rails developers later if your API looks and works like ActiveRecords.
Think about it in terms of what you want to be able to do to an object (this is where TDD comes in). You want to be able to fetch a collection Model.all, a specific element Model.find(identifier), push a changed element to the remote service updated_model.save and so on.
What the actual logic on the inside of these methods will have to be will depend on the remote service. But you will probably want each model class to hold a url to it's resource endpoint and you will defiantly want to keep the logic in your models. So instead of:
response = api_client.get_user(123)
User user = User.new(response)
you will do
class User
...
def find id
#api_client.get_user(id)
end
...
end
User.find(123)
or more probably
class ApiClient
...
protected
def self.uri resource_uri
#uri = resource_uri
end
def get id
# basically whatever code you envisioned for api_client.get_user
end
...
end
class User < ApiClient
uri 'http://path.to.remote/resource.json'
...
def find id
get(id)
end
...
end
User.find(123)
Basic principles: Collect all the shared logic in a class (ApiClient). Subclass that on a per resource basis (User). Keep all the logic in your models, no other part of your system should have to know if it's a DB backed app or if you are using an external REST API. Best of all is if you can keep the integration logic completely in the base class. That way you have only one place to update if the external datasource changes.
As for going the other way, Rails have several good methods to convert objects to JSON. From the to_json method to using a gem such as RABL to have actual views for your JSON objects.
You can get validations by using part of the ActiveRecord modules. As of Rails 4 this is a module called ActiveModel, but you can do it in Rails 3 and there are several tutorials for it online, not least of all a RailsCast.
Performance will not be a problem except what you can incur when calling a remote service, if the network is slow you will be to. Some of that could probably be helped with caching (see another answer by me for details) but that is also dependent on the data you are using.
Hope that put you on the right track. And if you want a more thorough grounding in how to design these kind of structures you should pick up a book on the subject, for example Practical Object-Oriented Design in Ruby: An Agile Primer by Sandi Metz.

How best to implement save() and setDirty() for my Java beans model?

I have a Java model which is effectively a tree of Java beans. Different areas of my application can change different beans of the model. When finished, I want to save the model, which should be able to work out which beans have actually changed, and call there
I know I can implement save(), isDirty() and setDirty() methods in all the beans, and have the setter check whether there is a change and call setDirty(). But ideally I don't want to have to programmicatically do this for each setter. I want to just be able to add new properties to the beans with no additional coding.
I'm also aware of PropertyChangeListeners, but again I would have to programmatically fire a change in each setter.
Can anyone recommend a pattern/aspect/annotation that I might be able to use to make my life easier? I don't think what I'm trying to achieve is everything new or groundbreaking so hoping there's something out there I can use.
Note that I'm coding in basic Java, so no fancy frameworks to fall back on (expect Spring for bean management - outside of my model).
Thanks in advance.

MVC with DAO/VO - Which DAO should the Controller talk to?

Background:
I have a design pattern problem that I was hoping someone may be able to solve. I program in PHP but I believe DAO/VO is popular in Java.
I have been using MVC for many years now. I designed a shopping that was MVC but used procedural programming. Thus recently I decided to develop the cart again, using OO.
Problem:
The problem I was faced with was that my Product class did not make sense to have a RetrieveAll() method.
E.g. If I had 10 products listed, from which instance would I call the RetrieveAll() method? I would have 10 choices.
Solution:
Thus, I found the DAO/VO pattern.
Unless I have not researched this pattern enough - I believe that each DB table must have a Model + DAO. No model or DAO should know about another set of models or DAO's. Thus being encapsulated.
The pattern makes perfect sense, pulling the database layer away from the Model.
However. In the shopping cart, my products are assigned categories.
A category could be electronics, clothing, etc.
There are 3 tables:
- Category (pid, name)
- Category Item (iid, name)
- Category Link (pid, iid)
From an MVC approach, it doesn't make sense of which DAO the controller should be talking to?
Should it be:
The controller talks to all 3 DAO's and then return the appropriate data structure to the View?
Or should the DAO's talk to one-another (somehow) and return a single structure back to the Controller?
Please see here for example (image)

I'm not sure what do you mean by VO. Is it value object?
I'm a huge fan of the DDD (domain driven design) approach (though I don't consider my self as guru in it). In DDD you have so called Services. Service Is an action that operates on your domain and returns data. Service encapsulates the manipulation with you Domain data.
Instead of having the controller to do all the domain logic like what items to retrieve, what DAO's to use and etc (why controller should care about the Domain anyway?), it should be encapsulated inside the Domain it self, in DDD case inside a Service.
So for example you want to retrieve all the Category items of the category "electronics".
You could write a controller that looks like this (forgive me if the code have invalid syntax, its for the sake of example):
public function showItemsByCategoryAction($categoryName) {
$categoryId = $categoryDAO->findByName($categoryName);
if(is_null($categoryId)) {
//#TODO error
}
$itemIds = $categoryLinkDAO->getItemsByCategoryId($categoryId);
if(empty($itemIds)) {
//#TODO show error to the user
}
$items = $categoryItemDAO->findManyItems($itemIds);
//#TODO parse, assign to view etc
}
This introduces at least two problems:
The controller is FSUC (Fat stupid ugly controller)
The code is not reusable. If you would like to add another presentation layer (like API for developers, mobile version of the website or etc), you would have to copy-paste the same code (expect the part of the view rendering), and eventually you will come to something that will encapsulate this code, and this is what Services are for.
With the Services layer the same controller could look like
public function showItemsByCategoryAction($categoryName) {
$service = new Item_CategoryName_Finder_Service();
$items = $service->find($categoryName);
if(empty($items)){
//#TODO show empty page result, redirect or whatever
}
$this->getView()->bind('items', $items);
}
The controller is now clean, small, and all the Domain logic is encapsulated inside a service that can be reused anywhere in the code.
Now some people believe that the controller should know nothing about DAOs and communicate with the Domain only by using Services, other says that its ok to make calls to DAOs from the controller, there are no strict rules, decide what suits better for you.
I hope this helps you!
Good luck :)

I'm not an expert in DDD either , but this is my opinion. This is the situation where the repository patern is applied. Basically, the Domain doesn't know nor care about DAO or anything else rpesistence related. At most knows about the repository inteface (which should be implemented at the infrastructure level).
The controller knows about the domain and the repository. The repository encapsulates everything db related, the application knows only about the repository itself (in fact the interface as the actual implementation should be injected). Then within the repository you have DAOs however you see fit. The repository receives and sends back only application/domain objects, nothing related to db acess implementation.
In a nutshell, anything db related is part and it's an implementation detail of the repository.

return type can be considered when deciding which dao method should go to which dao class, hence which dao should the controller talk to:
Implement one DAO class per Data Entity is more cleaner,
CRUD operations should go in to Dao classes,
C-Create, R-Read, U-Update, D-Delete
Read operations are not like Create, Update, Delete, most of the time Read operations have different flavors when considering what they return.
for Read operations, return type can be considered when deciding which dao method should go to which dao class
following are some Business Entities and there Dao
Exchange -> ExchangeDao
Company -> CompanyDao
Stock -> StockDao

Creating user events on certain actions. What is recommended solution?

This question regards how one can effectively create and persist event domain objects on certain system or user triggered events which themselves may or may not persist changes to the database.
Im creating a system where a user can tag some object, and when tagging occurs i should create a UserTagEvent which holds the object that was tagged, the tag that was applied or removed, and the user that tagged the object. (EDIT: This is not the actual TAG object, just a log of a tagging event)
The relationship of such a taggable object is one-to-many (a taggable object has many tags)
As far as i can see i have three alternatives.
Inline code in the controller/service which does the tagging (don't wanna do this as it mixes two different business processes.)
Use hibernate listeners pre-collection-update and post-collection-update to fetch the necessary information and create and persist a new UserTagEvent
Use AOP.
Do i have any other alternatives? Has anyone done something similar to this? What do you guys think i should do? Any help is appreciated.

It is not 100% clear if the UserTagEvent represents the actual tag or if it just acts as a log for a tag event.
Use hibernate listeners pre-collection-update and post-collection-update to fetch the necessary information and create and persist a new UserTagEvent
If the UserTagEvent is your tag the hibernate listeners would not make much sense because they would only get fired when you create a UserTagEvent and add it to the object by yourself and then you won nothing.
Inline code in the controller/service which does the tagging (don't wanna do this as it mixes two different business processes.)
I would start by creating a TagService that is responsible for tagging/tag-logging. You could use it either from a controller or by using it from aop but you should encapsule the functionality like: tagService.createTag(tag, object, user)
This could be handy especially when you later want to use a different technology to store the events like some nosql solution.

The following is what i learned when exploring my options:
1) Inline code in the controller/service which does the
tagging (don't wanna do this as it
mixes two different business
processes.)
Didnt give this alternative a try
2) Use hibernate listeners pre-collection-update and
post-collection-update to fetch the
necessary information and create and
persist a new UserTagEvent
This turned out to be very difficult, inefficient, and problematic for several reasons.
For example, you are working with a collection of items which may or may not be lazy initialized. In order to detect changes in the collection i had to listen for collection initialization event, get a cloned collection, store it to a field variable, then listen for a update collection event, get a cloned collection and compare with the collection previously stored.
In addition these events got fired for ALL hibernate events, not just for the domain objects i was interested in. So this was a "no go"...
3) Use AOP.
I was originally very optimistic about this solution, and after a few tries i soon came to realize that this wasn't as simple as i first thought. There were very few guides on the web describing Grails AND AOP, and those existed were rather old.
There was a lot more work involved than i originally thought. My overall impression is that grails seems to have a lot of bugs assosciated with AOP integration, and i also didn't like the fact that i had to add bean definitions to resources.groovy for each aspect that i created. I tried to make aspects be autoloaded through annotations (auto-proxy), but with no luck.
In addition i never got the pointcut to work outside the main project. As my tagging solution is defined as a grails plugin it seems that AOP can't be applied on classes of the plugin (even if it is a inplace plugin).
So this turned out to be a "no go" aswell
So drum roll please.
What i ended up with was using the observer pattern to fire off an event whenever a new tag was added or removed. This involved making changes to my tagger plugin where i could specify listeners through spring beans (whicn implemented a TagEventListener interface) and have the tagger plugin fire off events on the spring beans upon the addTag and removeTag method calls.
Overall im pretty happy with this solution, it involves one or two more method calls then what would be necessary if i had just inlined as described in option 1. But this way I have cleaner code, and i don't mix business processes. So i think the extra 1ns overhead is worth it.

Do you use Java annotations? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicates:
How and where are Annotations used in Java?
Java beans, annotations: What do they do? How do they help me?
Over and over, I read about Java 5's annotations being an 'advanced feature' of the language. Until recently, I haven't much used annotations (other than the usual #Override, &c), but work on a number of webservice-related projects has forced my hand. Since I learned Java pre-5, I never really took the time to sit down and grok the annotation system.
My question- do you guys actually use annotations? How helpful are they to you, day-to-day? How many StackOverflow-ers have had to write a custom annotation?

Perhaps the most useful and used case of Java Annotations is to use POJO + Annotation instead of xml configuration files
I use it a lot since (as you already stated) if you use a web framework (like spring or seam) they usually have plenty of annotations to help you.
I have recently wrote some annotations to build a custom statemachine, validations purpose and annotations of annotations (using the metadata aspect of it). And IMO they help a lot making the code cleaner, easier to understand and manage.

Current project (200KLOC), annotations I use all the time are:
#NotNull / #Nullabe
#Override
#Test
#Ignore
#ThreadSafe
#Immutable
But I haven't written yet my own annotation... Yet!

I have used annotations for:
Hibernate, so I don't need to keep those huge XML files;
XML Serialization, so I describe how the object should be rendered in the object itself;
Warning removal for warnings that I don't want to disable (and for which the particular case cannot be properly solved).
I have created annotations for:
Describe the state required in order for my method to be executed (for example, that a user must be logged in);
Mark my method as executable from a specific platform with additional properties for that platform;
And probably some other similar operations.
The annotations that I have created are read with Reflection when I need to get more information about the object I am working with. It works and it works great.

Annotations are just for frameworks and they do work great in hibernate/jpa. until you write a framework that needs some extra information from passed to it objects you wont write your own annotations.
however there is new and cool junit feature that let you write your own annotations in tests - http://blog.mycila.com/2009/11/writing-your-own-junit-extensions-using.html

I use annotations daily and they are wonderful. I use them with jsf and jpa and find them much easier to manage and work with than the alternative XML configurations.

I use annotations for describing in my state synchronisation system what classes are specialisations of the annotated classes, and the environment in which they should be used (when an object is created, it will work out for its entity lists which are the best entity classes to create for the nodes on the network; i.e., a Player entity for a server node is instead a ServerPlayer entity). Additionally, the attributes inside the classes are described and how they should be synchronised across machines.

We just used annotations to create a simple way to validate our POJO's:
#NotEmpty
#Pattern(regex = "I")
private String value;
Then we run this through the Hibernate validator which will do all our validation for us:
import org.hibernate.validator.ClassValidator;
import org.hibernate.validator.InvalidValue;
public void validate(T validateMe) {
ClassValidator<T> validator = new ClassValidator<T>((Class<T>) validateMe.getClass());
InvalidValue[] errors = validator.getInvalidValues(validateMe);
}
Works great. Nice clean code.

We use custom annotations as a part of our integration testing system:
#Artifact: Associates an integration test with an issue ID. Trace matrices are then automatically generated for our testing and regulatory departments.
#Exclude: Ignores an integration test based on the browser platform / version. Keeps the IE 6 bugs from clogging up our nightly test runs :)
#SeleniumSession: Defines test specific selenium settings for each integration test.
They are a very powerful tool, but you gotta use them carefully. Just have a look at those early .NET Enterprise class files to see what a nightmare mandatory annotations can be :)

We have a report builder as part of our webapp. A user can add a large number of widgets that are all small variations on the same set of themes (graphs, tables, etc).
The UI builds itself based on custom annotations in the widget classes. (e.g. an annotation might contain default value and valid values that would render as a dropdown. Or a flag indicating if the field is mandatory).
It has turned out be be a good way to allow devs to crank out widgets without having to touch the UI.