I have a unidirectional relation Project -> ProjectType:
#Entity
public class Project extends NamedEntity
{
#ManyToOne(optional = false)
#JoinColumn(name = "TYPE_ID")
private ProjectType type;
}
#Entity
public class ProjectType extends Lookup
{
#Min(0)
private int progressive = 1;
}
Note that there's no cascade.
Now, when I insert a new Project I need to increment the type progressive.
This is what I'm doing inside an EJB, but I'm not sure it's the best approach:
public void create(Project project)
{
em.persist(project);
/* is necessary to merge the type? */
ProjectType type = em.merge(project.getType());
/* is necessary to set the type again? */
project.setType(type);
int progressive = type.getProgressive();
type.setProgressive(progressive + 1);
project.setCode(type.getPrefix() + progressive);
}
I'm using eclipselink 2.6.0, but I'd like to know if there's a implementation independent best practice and/or if there are behavioral differences between persistence providers, about this specific scenario.
UPDATE
to clarify the context when entering EJB create method (it is invoked by a JSF #ManagedBean):
project.projectType is DETACHED
project is NEW
no transaction (I'm using JTA/CMT) is active
I am not asking about the difference between persist() and merge(), I'm asking if either
if em.persist(project) automatically "reattach" project.projectType (I suppose not)
if it is legal the call order: first em.persist(project) then em.merge(projectType) or if it should be inverted
since em.merge(projectType) returns a different instance, if it is required to call project.setType(managedProjectType)
An explaination of "why" this works in a way and not in another is also welcome.
You need merge(...) only to make a transient entity managed by your entity manager. Depending on the implementation of JPA (not sure about EclipseLink) the returned instance of the merge call might be a different copy of the original object.
MyEntity unmanaged = new MyEntity();
MyEntity managed = entityManager.merge(unmanaged);
assert(entityManager.contains(managed)); // true if everything worked out
assert(managed != unmanaged); // probably true, depending on JPA impl.
If you call manage(entity) where entity is already managed, nothing will happen.
Calling persist(entity) will also make your entity managed, but it returns no copy. Instead it merges the original object and it might also call an ID generator (e.g. a sequence), which is not the case when using merge.
See this answer for more details on the difference between persist and merge.
Here's my proposal:
public void create(Project project) {
ProjectType type = project.getType(); // maybe check if null
if (!entityManager.contains(type)) { // type is transient
type = entityManager.merge(type); // or load the type
project.setType(type); // update the reference
}
int progressive = type.getProgressive();
type.setProgressive(progressive + 1); // mark as dirty, update on flush
// set "code" before persisting "project" ...
project.setCode(type.getPrefix() + progressive);
entityManager.persist(project);
// ... now no additional UPDATE is required after the
// INSERT on "project".
}
UPDATE
if em.persist(project) automatically "reattach" project.projectType (I suppose not)
No. You'll probably get an exception (Hibernate does anyway) stating, that you're trying to merge with a transient reference.
Correction: I tested it with Hibernate and got no exception. The project was created with the unmanaged project type (which was managed and then detached before persisting the project). But the project type's progression was not incremented, as expected, since it wasn't managed. So yeah, manage it before persisting the project.
if it is legal the call order: first em.persist(project) then em.merge(projectType) or if it should be inverted
It's best practise to do so. But when both statements are executed within the same batch (before the entity manager gets flushed) it may even work (merging type after persisting project). In my test it worked anyway. But as I said, it's better to merge the entities before persisting new ones.
since em.merge(projectType) returns a different instance, if it is required to call project.setType(managedProjectType)
Yes. See example above. A persistence provider may return the same reference, but it isn't required to. So to be sure, call project.setType(mergedType).
Do you need to merge? Well it depends. According to merge() javadoc:
Merge the state of the given entity into the current persistence
context
How did you get the instance of ProjectType you attach to your Project to? If that instance is already managed then all you need to do is just
type.setProgessive(type.getProgressive() + 1)
and JPA will automatically issue an update effective on next context flush.
Otherwise if the type is not managed then you need to merge it first.
Although not directly related this quesetion has some good insight about persist vs merge: JPA EntityManager: Why use persist() over merge()?
With the call order of em.persist(project) vs em.merge(projectType), you probably should ask yourself what should happen if the type is gone in the database? If you merge the type first it will get re-inserted, if you persist the project first and you have FK constraint the insert will fail (because it's not cascading).
Here in this code. Merge basically store the record in different object, Let's say
One Account pojo is there
Account account =null;
account = entityManager.merge(account);
then you can store the result of this.
But in your code your are using merge different condition like
public void create(Project project)
{
em.persist(project);
/* is necessary to merge the type? */
ProjectType type = em.merge(project.getType());
}
here
Project and ProjectType two different pojo you can use merge for same pojo.
or is there any relationship between in your pojo then also you can use it.
Related
I'd like to implement repository method void touch(MyEntity myEntity) which enforces SQL call of update of entity columns to their current values. (The reason behind is the on update trigger which needs to be invoked in some point of execution.) Ideal usecase is:
void serviceMethod(Long myEntityId) {
MyEntity myEntity = myEntityRepository.findOne(myEntityId);
...
myEntityRepository.touch(myEntity);
...
}
There are already similar questions on SO which don't work for me: Force update in Hibernate (my entity is detached), Implementing “touch” on JPA entity? (doing some harmless change works but is not general and has bad impact on code readability), Hibernate Idempotent Update (similar example).
I am aware of session interceptor method findDirty and also CustomEntityDirtinessStrategy both described in this Vlad Mihalcea's article. However, it seems to use findDirty I would have to override session interceptor, which is not possible from within repository method since the interceptor is final field assigned to session at session creation. And CustomEntityDirtinessStrategy comes from SessionFactory which is global. I rather need some one-shot solution to temporary consider one concrete entity of one concrete class dirty.
The so-far-best working solution is to set invalid (array of nulls) entity snapshot into persistence context, so that the subsequent logic in flush() evaluates entity as differing from snapshot and enforce update. This works:
#Override
#Transactional
public void touch(final T entity) {
SessionImpl session = (SessionImpl)em.getDelegate();
session.update(entity);
StatefulPersistenceContext pctx = (StatefulPersistenceContext) session.getPersistenceContext();
Serializable id = session.getIdentifier(entity);
EntityPersister persister = session.getEntityPersister(null, entity);
EntityKey entityKey = session.generateEntityKey(id, persister);
int length = persister.getPropertyNames().length;
Field entitySnapshotsByKeyField = FieldUtils.getField(pctx.getClass(), "entitySnapshotsByKey", true);
Map<EntityKey,Object> entitySnapshotsByKey = (Map<EntityKey,Object>)ReflectionUtils.getField(entitySnapshotsByKeyField, pctx);
entitySnapshotsByKey.put(entityKey, new Object[length]);
session.flush();
em.refresh(entity);
}
The advice in Force update in Hibernate didn't work for me because session.evict(entity) clears entitySnapshotsByKey entry at all, which causes subsequent org.hibernate.event.internal.DefaultFlushEntityEventListener#getDatabaseSnapshot loads fresh entity from db. The question is 9 years old and I'm not sure if it's applicable to current version of Hibernate (mine is 5.2.17).
I am not satisfied with such hacky solution though. Is there some straightforward way or something I could do simpler?
I work on a Java project and I have to write a new module in order to copy some data from one database to another (same tables).
I have an entity Contrat containing several fields and the following field :
#OneToMany(mappedBy = "contrat", fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#Fetch(FetchMode.SUBSELECT)
#Cascade( { org.hibernate.annotations.CascadeType.ALL, org.hibernate.annotations.CascadeType.DELETE_ORPHAN })
#BatchSize(size = 50)
private Set<MonElement> elements = new HashSet<MonElement>();
I must read some "Contrat" objects from a database and write them in another database.
I hesitate between 2 solutions :
use jdbc to query the first database and get the objects and then write those objects into the second database (paying attention to the order and the different keys). It will be long.
as the project currently uses Hibernate and contains all hibernate mapping classes, I was thinking about opening a first session to the first database, reading the hibernate Contrat object, setting the ids to null in the children elements and writing the object to the destination database with a second session. It should be quicker.
I wrote a test class for the second use case and the process fails with the following exception :
org.hibernate.HibernateException: Don't change the reference to a
collection with cascade="all-delete-orphan"
I think the reference must change when I set the ids to null, but I am not sure : I don't understand how changing a field of a Collection member can change the Collection reference
Note that if I remove DELETE_ORPHAN from the configuration, everything works, all the objects and their dependencies are written in the database.
So I would like to use the hibernate solution which is faster but I have to keep the DELETE_ORPHAN feature because the application currently uses this feature to ensure that every MonElement removed from the elements Set will be deleted in the database.
I don't need this feature but cannot remove it.
Also, I need to set the MonElement ids to null in order to generate new ones because their id in the first database may exist in the target database.
Here is the code I wrote which works well when I remove the DELETE_ORPHAN option.
SessionFactory sessionFactory = new AnnotationConfiguration().configure("/hibernate.cfg.src.xml").buildSessionFactory();
Session session = sessionFactory.openSession();
// search the Contrat object
Criteria crit = session.createCriteria(Contrat.class);
CriteriaUtil.addEqualCriteria(crit, "column", "65465454");
Contrat contrat = (Contrat)crit.list().get(0);
session.close();
SessionFactory sessionFactoryDest = new AnnotationConfiguration().configure("/hibernate.cfg.dest.xml").buildSessionFactory();
Session sessionDest = sessionFactoryDest.openSession();
Transaction transaction = sessionDest.beginTransaction();
// setting id to null, also for the elements in the elements Set
contrat.setId(null);
for (MonElement element:contrat.getElements()) {
element.setId(null);
}
// writing the object in the database
sessionDest.save(contrat);
transaction.commit();
sessionDest.flush();
sessionDest.close();
This is way faster than managing myself the queries and the primary / foreign keys and dependencies between objects.
Does anyone have an idea to get rid of this exception ?
Or maybe I should change the state of the Set.
In fact I'm not trying to delete any element of this Set, I just want them to be considered as new objects.
If I don't find a solution, I will do something dirty : duplicate all hibernate entity objects in my new project and remove the DELETE_ORPHAN parameter in the newly created Contrat.
So the application will continue using its mapping and my new project will use my specific mapping. But I want to avoid that.
Thanks
A correct solution has been written by crizzis as a comment to my question.
I quote him :
I'd try wrapping the contrat.elements in a new collection (contrat.setElements(new HashSet<>(contrat.getElements())) before trying to persist the contract with the new session
It works well.
I know that when using Wicket with JPA frameworks it is not advisable to serialize entities that have already been persisted to the database (because of problems with lazy fields and to save space). In such cases we are supposed to use LoadableDetachableModel. But what about the following use-case?
Suppose we want to create a new entity (say, a Contract) which will consist, among other things, of persisted entities (say, a Client which is selected from a list of clients stored in the DB). The entity under creation is a model object of some Wicket component (say, a Wizard). In the end (when we finish our wizard) we save the new entity to the DB. So my question is: what is the best generic solution to the serialization problem of such model objects? We can't use LDM because the entity is not in the DB yet but we don't want our inner entities (like Client) to be serialized wholly, too.
My idea was to implement a custom wicket serializer that checks if the object is an entity and if it is persisted. If so, store only its id, otherwise use the default serialization. Similarly, when deserializing use the stored id and get the entity from the DB or deserialize using the default mechanism. Not sure, though, how to do that in a generic way. My next thought was that if we can do it, then we do not need any LDM anymore, we can just store all our entities in simple org.apache.wicket.model.Model models and our serialization logic will take care of them, right?
Here's some code:
#Entity
Client {
String clientName;
#ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
ClientGroup group;
}
#Entity
Contract {
Date date;
#ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
Client client;
}
ContractWizard extends Wizard {
ContractWizard(String markupId, IModel<Contract> model) {
super(markupId);
setDefaultModel(model);
}
}
Contract contract = DAO.createEntity(Contract.class);
ContractWizard wizard = new ContractWizard("wizard", ?);
How to pass the contract? If we just say Model.of(contract) the whole contract will be serialized along with inner client (and it can be big), moreover if we access contract.client.group after deserialization we can bump into the problem: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Java_Persistence/Relationships#Serialization.2C_and_Detaching
So I wonder how people go about solving such issues, I'm sure it's a fairly common problem.
I guess there are 2 approaches to your problem:
a.) Only save the stuff the user actually sees in Models. In your example that might be "contractStartDate", "contractEndDate", List of clientIds. That's the main approach if you don't want your DatabaseObjects in your view.
b.) Write your own LoadableDetachableModel and make sure you only serialize transient objects. For example like: (assuming that any negative id is not saved to the database)
public class MyLoadableDetachableModel extends LoadableDetachableModel {
private Object myObject;
private Integer id;
public MyLoadableDetachableModel(Object myObject) {
this.myObject = myObject;
this.id = myObject.getId();
}
#Override
protected Object load() {
if (id < 0) {
return myObject;
}
return myObjectDao.getMyObjectById(id);
}
#Override
protected void onDetach() {
super.onDetach();
id = myObject.getId();
if (id >= 0) {
myObject = null;
}
}
}
The downfall of this is that you'll have to make your DatabaseObjects Serializable which is not really ideal and can lead to all kind of problems. You would also need to decouple the references to other entities from the transient object by using a ListModel.
Having worked with both approaches I personally prefer the first. From my expierence the whole injecting dao objects into wicket can lead to disaster. :) I would only use this in view-only projects that aren't too big.
Most projects I know of just accept serializing referenced entities (e.g. your Clients) along with the edited entity (Contract).
Using conversations (keeping a Hibernate/JPA session open over several requests) is a nice alternative for applications with complex entity relations:
The Hibernate session and its entities is kept separate from the page and is never serialized. The component just keeps an identifier to fetch its conversation.
This question is so simple, you can probably just read the code
This is a very simple performance question. In the code example below, I wish to set the Owner on my Cat object. I have the ownerId, but the cats method for requires an Owner object, not a Long. Eg: setOwner(Owner owner)
#Autowired OwnerRepository ownerRepository;
#Autowired CatRepository catRepository;
Long ownerId = 21;
Cat cat = new Cat("Jake");
cat.setOwner(ownerRepository.findById(ownerId)); // What a waste of time
catRepository.save(cat)
I'm using the ownerId to load an Owner object, so I can call the setter on the Cat which is simply going to pull out the id, and save the Cat record with an owner_id. So essentially I'm loading an owner for nothing.
What is the correct pattern for this?
First of all, you should pay attention to your method to load an Owner entity.
If you're using an Hibernate Session :
// will return the persistent instance and never returns an uninitialized instance
session.get(Owner.class, id);
// might return a proxied instance that is initialized on-demand
session.load(Owner.class, id);
If you're using EntityManager :
// will return the persistent instance and never returns an uninitialized instance
em.find(Owner.class, id);
// might return a proxied instance that is initialized on-demand
em.getReference(Owner.class, id);
So, you should lazy load the Owner entity to avoid some hits to the cache nor the database.
By the way, I would suggest to inverse your relation between Owner and Cat.
For example :
Owner owner = ownerRepository.load(Owner.class, id);
owner.addCat(myCat);
Victor's answer is correct (+1 from me), but requires going through the EntityManager or Hibernate session. Assuming the repositories you have autowired are JPA repositories from Spring Data and you would prefer to go through them, use the JpaRepository#getOne method. It calls EntityManager#getReference, so it does the same thing, returning a proxy to the entity.
I do not think the relationship necessarily needs to be reversed here, which mapping to use depends on the situation. In many cases many-to-one is preferred.
Probably not what you were looking for, but nothing in your question implies that you have to solve this with JPA. Some things are just much much simpler with plain old SQL:
INSERT INTO cat (name, owner_id) VALUES ('Jake', 21)
If you are using Hibernate you can do this:
Long ownerId = 21;
Cat cat = new Cat("Jake");
Owner owner = new Owner();
owner.setId(ownerId);
cat.setOwner(owner);
catRepository.save(cat)
It's not standard JPA, but, if you are not willing to migrate to other JPA provider, it's the best from a performance perspective.
Update
As Nathan pointed out, you need to make sure the Owner is not already associated (in which case you can get a NonUniqueObjectException since the Persistence Context can have at most one entity associated in the 1st level cache).
Using EntityManager.contains(entity) doesn't help in this case, since Hibernate stores the entities in an IdentiyHashMap, where the key is the Object reference itself.
So you should use this method when, for example, you have a use case where you must insert these entities for the first time, or when you need to update them and the Owner hadn't been loaded in the current running Persistence Context (either directly or through JPQL or a Criteria API).
Otherwise, use EntityManager.getReferemce(Class entityClass, Object primaryKey).
One more way (can come handy sometimes in legacy code or db schema):
#Entity
public class Cat {
#Column(name = "OWNER_ID")
private Long ownerId;
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "OWNER_ID", insertable = false, updatable = false)
private Owner owner;
}
My current project is done using JavaFX. I use properties to bind (bidirectionnal) view fields to bean (with BeanPathAdapter of JFXtras).
I choose to use JPA with ObjectDB as model.
This is the first time I use JPA in a standalone project and here I'm facing the problem of managed entities.
Actually, I bind managed entities to view fields and when the value of a view field changes, the entities is updated... and the database also.
I'm trying to find a way to manually persist/merge an entity so I can ask the user if he wants to save or not.
Here's the code i use to get list :
EntityManagerFactory emf = Persistence.createEntityManagerFactory("$objectdb/data/db.odb");
EntityManager em = emf.createEntityManager();
List<XXX> entities = em.createQuery("SELECT x FROM XXX x").getResultList();
So when i do
entity.setName("test");
the entity is updated in the database.
What i'm looking for is that the entity doesn't update automatically.
I tried (just after the getResultList)
em.clear();
or
em.detach(entity);
but it looses the relations instances even with CascadeType.DETACH.
I also tried
em.setFlushMode(FlushModeType.COMMIT);
but it still updates automatically...
I also tried to clone the object. But when i want to merge it, it gives me an exception :
Attempt to reuse an existing primary key value
I thought an alternative solution : use a variable as 'buffer' and fill the managed bean with buffer if the user saves. But BeanPathAdapter looses its sense. It's the same as filling view fields manually and filling bean fields manually after saving.
Could you help me to find a solution ?
Thanks,
Smoky
EDIT:
I answer to my own question :p
After 3 hours of research, I found a solution.
The 'cloning' solution was the 'best' of each I quoted but I don't think it's the best one.
The cause of the exception was the code I used to persist/merge my entity. I was persisting an entity non-managed with an already existing id. I thought I was merging...
I did a generic method not to fail again
public <T extends IEntity> T persist(T object) {
em.getTransaction().begin();
if (object.getId() == null) {
em.persist(object);
em.flush();
em.getTransaction().commit();
em.refresh(object);
}
else {
object = em.merge(object);
em.getTransaction().commit();
}
return object;
}
So the solution : When I have to bind the entity to the view, I use entity.clone() so I can use the entity as non-managed and merge when I want.
But if you have a proper solution, i'm interested :)
Thanks again
In addition to the solution above, standard solutions are:
Use detached objects in the model and then merge them into the EntityManager.
Use managed objects in the model, keeping the EntityManager open (with no detach/merge).