Develop Reference

OneToMany lazy initialization when needing collection data

What's a workaround if I have a relation OneToMany and would like to access the collection that is lazy loaded? Currently I get LazyInitializationException having this:
Club entity:
#Entity
public class Club {
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.IDENTITY)
private Long id;
private String name;
#OneToMany(mappedBy = "club", cascade = CascadeType.PERSIST, fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#JsonBackReference
private List<Player> players;
Player entity:
Is it a good idea to have two methods, where one fetches data without players and the second one that fetches also players?
#Override
List<Club> findAll();
#Query("Select clubs from Club clubs left join fetch clubs.players")
List<Club> getAllClubsWithPlayers();
What I'm thinking of is that it is a bad idea, because if I have a situation where I have for example 4 properties that are lazy loaded and I'd need at once 3 of them, I'd have to have a query like: getAllClubsWithPlayersAndSponsorsAndCoaches, so I'd have to have a lot of combinations of such queries.
I don't want to use EAGER, so could you tell me if it's a common way to do this if I need access to players from the Club sometimes which is undoable with the findAll() method that throws LazyInitializationException?
Don't get me wrong - I know where the LazyInitializationException comes from, but I just don't know what's the best way to get access to players if I sometimes need them when fetching clubs. Is my way of doing it correct?

There are 3 choices:
Access all the lazy fields inside a #Transactional method. You don't show your code, but there's usually a Service Facade layer which is responsible for being #Transactional. It invokes Repositories.
Write a query that fetches all the required data. Then you'd have to create a method specifically to fetch all the lazy fields required for that logic.
Use OpenSessionInViewFilter or OpenSessionInViewInterceptor so that Session/EntityManager are started before the execution even reaches the Controller. The Session then would be closed by the same high-level layer at the end of the request processing.

In addition to what Stanislav wrote, I'd like to elaborate on his 2nd point, because I think that this is often the best approach - that's simply because it saves unnecessary calls to the database which results in better performance.
Apart from writing separate JPQL query in your repository for each use-case, you could do one of the following .:
Make your repository extend JpaSpecificationExecutor and programmatically describe what needs to be fetched as described in this answer
Use Entity Graph either described using annotations, or programmatically, and fetch your entities using EntityManager as described in this tutorial

To optionally load what you want you can use EntityGraph.
Declare #NamedEntityGraph at your entity
#Entity
#NamedEntityGraph(name = "Club.players",
attributeNodes = #NamedAttributeNode("players")
)
public class Club {
Then you should annotate your findAll() method with this graph using it's name
#EntityGraph(value = "Club.players")
List<Club> findAll();
However that would override your basic findAll() method.
To avoid this (to have both implementations) you can follow this way:
Add dependency from https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/com.cosium.spring.data/spring-data-jpa-entity-graph/<version>
Then replace your repository with
#Repository
public interface ClubRepository extends JpaSpecificationExecutor<Club>, JpaRepository<Club, Long>, EntityGraphJpaSpecificationExecutor<Club> {
}
And then you'll have basic method findAll() and also from your sevice you can call
List<Club> clubs = clubRepository.findAll(specification, new NamedEntityGraph(EntityGraphType.FETCH, "Club.players"))

What is the proper way to create and validate an Entity Model and its DTO in a RESTful API?

I am developing my first RESTful API from scratch and with Spring Boot.
I have already created the endpoints, models and JPA repositories for "standalone" entities. But now that I started linking them together and after doing some research I got to the conclusion that I may have to create DTOs. I don't think everytime I'm creating a new Order with a POST request I should make the client send the whole Customer and Employee objects inside the request as nested objects of Order (if I am also wrong in this please let me know). I am thinking about creating a DTO by just replacing the class relations with just IDs.
This is how my entity is currently defined:
#Data
#Entity
#Table(name = "Orders")
public class Order {
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.SEQUENCE)
private Long id;
#NotBlank
#NotNull
private String description;
#NotBlank
#NotNull
private Status status;
#NotNull
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(foreignKey = #ForeignKey(name = "employee_id_fk"))
private Employee employee;
#NotNull
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(foreignKey = #ForeignKey(name = "customer_id_fk"))
private Customer customer;
protected Order() {}
public Order(String description) {
this.description = description;
this.status = Status.IN_PROGRESS;
}
}
And my endpoint (this is what I must change):
#PostMapping("/orders")
ResponseEntity<EntityModel<Order>> createOrder(#Valid #RequestBody Order order) {
order.setStatus(Status.IN_PROGRESS);
Order newOrder = repository.save(order);
return ResponseEntity
.created(linkTo(methodOn(OrderController.class).getOrder(newOrder.getId())).toUri())
.body(assembler.toModel(newOrder));
}
Now, how should I validate the requests with this format?
Previously, as you can see, I would simply use #Valid and it would automatically get validated when the endpoint is called against the Order model. However, if I create the DTO, I would have to validate the DTO with the same methodology and duplicate all the annotations from its model (#NotNull, #NotBlank, etc.). Maybe I should validate the entity model after mapping it from the DTO but I don't know how straightforward that would be and whether that is a good practice of validating requests. I also can't remove the validations from the entity model because I'm using Hibernate to map them to tables.

Great questions!
I don't think everytime I'm creating a new Order with a POST request I should make the client send the whole Customer and Employee objects inside the request as nested objects of Order (if I am also wrong in this please let me know).
You're right. It's not because we can save bits and bytes (as it may look like), but because the lesser information you can ask from the client, the better the experience he/she would get (whether it's an external integrator or front-end/back-end application within the same company). Fewer amounts of data to encompass = easier to comprehend and less room for an error. It also makes your API cleaner from the design perspective. Is it possible to process your request without the field? Then it shouldn't be in your API.
Now, how should I validate the requests with this format? Previously, as you can see, I would simply use #Valid and it would automatically get validated when the endpoint is called against the Order model. However, if I create the DTO, I would have to validate the DTO with the same methodology and duplicate all the annotations from its model (#NotNull, #NotBlank, etc.).
You can also use #Valid to kick in validation for DTO inside the controller within the method mapped to endpoint. But as you mentioned correctly, all validated fields within DTO should be annotated with #NotNull, #NotBlank, etc. As a solution, to the "duplication" problem, you can create a base class and define all validations in there and inherit DTO and Entity from it. But please, don't do that!
Having the same fields and validation rules within DTO and Enity isn't considered duplication since they are separate concepts and each one of serves its specific purpose within its layer (DTO - top tier, Entity - most often lowest, Data tier). There are a lot of examples demonstrating it (e.g. here and here)
Maybe I should validate the entity model after mapping it from the DTO but I don't know how straightforward that would be and whether that is a good practice of validating requests.
It's a best practice to validate the request and a lot of projects are following it. In your example, it's very straightforward (direct mapping from DTO to Entity), but very often you would have a service layer that does some business logic before handing it off to a data layer (even in your example I recommend moving out your code from controller to a service layer). You don't want malformed request pass beyond the controller to handle it later with excessive if statements, null checks (that leads to a defensive code that's hard to follow and it's also error-prone).
Another note: you shouldn't sacrifice client experience and tell them or force yourself to add two more fields because it allows having one Object serving as DTO and Entity and simplifies development.
The last note: To map fields from DTO to Entity you can use one of the object mapper libraries.

Hibernate good practice, lazy/eager loading and saving/deleting children (help me Hibernate sensei)

So, I have found myself in quite a pickle regarding Hibernate. When I started developing my web application, I used "eager" loading everywhere so I could easily access children, parents etc.
After a while, I ran into my first problem - re-saving of deleted objects. Multiple stackoverflow threads suggested that I should remove the object from all the collections that it's in. Reading those suggestions made my "spidey sense" tickle as my relations weren't really simple and I had to iterate multiple objects which made my code look kind of ugly and made me wonder if this was the best approach.
For example, when deleting Employee (that belongs to User in a sense that User can act as multiple different Employees). Let's say Employee can leave Feedback to Party, so Employee can have multiple Feedback and Party can have multiple Feedback. Additionally, both Employee and Party belong to some kind of a parent object, let's say an Organization. Basically, we have:
class User {
// Has many
Set<Employee> employees;
// Has many
Set<Organization> organizations;
// Has many through employees
Set<Organization> associatedOrganizations;
}
class Employee {
// Belongs to
User user;
// Belongs to
Organization organization;
// Has many
Set<Feedback> feedbacks;
}
class Organization {
// Belongs to
User user;
// Has many
Set<Employee> employees;
// Has many
Set<Party> parties;
}
class Party {
// Belongs to
Organization organization;
// Has many
Set<Feedback> feedbacks;
}
class Feedback {
// Belongs to
Party party;
// Belongs to
Employee employee;
}
Here's what I ended up with when deleting an employee:
// First remove feedbacks related to employee
Iterator<Feedback> iter = employee.getFeedbacks().iterator();
while (iter.hasNext()) {
Feedback feedback = iter.next();
iter.remove();
feedback.getParty().getFeedbacks().remove(feedback);
session.delete(feedback);
}
session.update(employee);
// Now remove employee from organization
Organization organization = employee.getOrganization();
organization.getEmployees().remove(employee);
session.update(organization);
This is, by my definition, ugly. I would've assumed that by using
#Cascade({CascadeType.ALL})
then Hibernate would magically remove Employee from all associations by simply doing:
session.delete(employee);
instead I get:
Error during managed flush [deleted object would be re-saved by cascade (remove deleted object from associations)
So, in order to try to get my code a bit cleaner and maybe even optimized (sometimes lazy fetch is enough, sometimes I need eager), I tried lazy fetching almost everything and hoping that if I do, for example:
employee.getFeedbacks()
then the feedbacks are nicely fetched without any problem but nope, everything breaks:
failed to lazily initialize a collection of role: ..., could not initialize proxy - no Session
The next thing I thought about was removing the possibility for objects to insert/delete their related children objects but that would probably be a bad idea performance-wise - inserting every object separately with
child.parent=parent
instead of in a bulk with
parent.children().add(children).
Finally, I saw that multiple people recommended creating my own custom queries and stuff but at that point, why should I even bother with Hibernate? Is there really no good way to handle my problem relatively clean or am I missing something or am I an idiot?

If I understood the question correctly it's all about cascading through simple 1:N relations. In that case Hibernate can do the job rather well:
#Entity
public class Post {
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.AUTO)
private Long id;
#OneToMany(cascade = CascadeType.ALL,
mappedBy = "post", orphanRemoval = true)
private List<Comment> comments = new ArrayList<>();
}
#Entity
public class Comment {
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.AUTO)
private Long id;
#ManyToOne
private Post post;
}
Code:
Post post = newPost();
doInTransaction(session -> {
session.delete(post);
});
Generates:
delete from Comment where id = 1
delete from Comment where id = 2
delete from Post where id = 1
But if you have some other (synthetic) collections, Hibernate has no chance to know which ones, so you have to handle them yourself.
As for Hibernate and custom queries, Hibernate provides HQL which is more compact then traditional SQL, but still is less transparent then annotations.

Safe embedded entity with objectify

I have two entities.
#Entity
public class Recipe {
#Id
private Long id;
private List<Step> steps;
}
#Entity
public class Step {
#Id
private Long id;
private String instruction;
}
And the following Clound Endpoint
#ApiMethod(
name = "insert",
path = "recipe",
httpMethod = ApiMethod.HttpMethod.POST)
public Recipe insert(Recipe recipe) {
ofy().save().entities(recipe.getSteps()).now(); //superfluous?
ofy().save().entity(recipe).now();
logger.info("Created Recipe with ID: " + recipe.getId());
return ofy().load().entity(recipe).now();
}
I'm wondering how do I skip the step where I have to save the emebedded entity first. The Id of neither entity is set. I want objectify to automatically create those. But if don't save the embedded entity I get an exception.
com.googlecode.objectify.SaveException: Error saving com.devmoon.meadule.backend.entities.Recipe#59e4ff19: You cannot create a Key for an object with a null #Id. Object was com.devmoon.meadule.backend.entities.Step#589a3afb
Since my object structure will get a lot more complex, I need to find a way to skip this manual step.

I presume you are trying to create real embedded objects, not separate objects stored in the datastore and linked. Your extra save() is actually saving separate entities. You don't want that.
You have two options:
Don't give your embedded object an id. Don't give it #Entity and don't give it an id field (or at least eliminate #Id). It's just a POJO. 90% of the time, this is what people want with embedded objects.
Allocate the id yourself with the allocator, typically in your (non-default) constructor.
Assuming you want a true embedded entity with a real key, #2 is probably what you should use. Keep in mind that this key is somewhat whimsical since you can't actually load it; only the container object can be looked up in the datastore.
I suggest going one step further and never use automatic id generation for any entities ever. Always use the allocator in the (non-default) constructor of your entities. This ensures that entities always have a valid, stable id. If you always allocate the id before a transaction start, it fixes duplicate entities that can be created when a transaction gets retried. Populating null ids is just a bad idea all around and really should not have been added to GAE.

The concept of the embedded is that the embedded content is persisted inside the main entity.
Is this the behaviour you are trying to configure?
The default behaviour of a Collection (List) of #Entity annoted class is to refer them instead of embed them. As you current configuration, the List<Step> variable does not have any annotation to override the default configuration, which is a different entity related to another one.
The error you are getting is because Objectify, when it saves the recipe entity, is trying to get the key of each step to create the relationship (and save them in the recipe entity), but if the entity step is not saved yet on the datastore, does not have a key
If you are trying to persist the steps inside the recipe entity, you need to setup objectify like this
#Entity
public class Recipe {
#Id
private Long id;
private List<Step> steps;
}
public class Step {
private Long id;
private String instruction;
}
As you can see, I removed the #Id annotation (an embedded Entity does not require an ID because is inside another entity) and the #Entity from the Step class. With this configuration, Objectify save the step entities inside the recipe entity
Source: https://code.google.com/p/objectify-appengine/wiki/Entities#Embedded_Object_Native_Representation

Mapping JSON object to Hibernate entity

I'm going to start a project of a REST application managed with Spring and with Hibernate for my model.
I know that Spring allows you to get Java object from the HTTP Request (with #Consumes(JSON) annotation). Is there any conflict if this Java object is also a Hibernate entities? And is nested object working (like #ManyToOne relation)?

Maven dependency
The first thing you need to do is to set up the following Hibernate Types Maven dependency in your project pom.xml configuration file:
<dependency>
<groupId>com.vladmihalcea</groupId>
<artifactId>hibernate-types-52</artifactId>
<version>${hibernate-types.version}</version>
</dependency>
Domain model
Now, if you are using PostgreSQL, you need to use the JsonType from Hibernate Types.
In order to use it in your entities, you will have to declare it on either class level or in a package-info.java package-level descriptor, like this:
#TypeDef(name = "json", typeClass = JsonType.class)
And, the entity mapping will look like this:
#Type(type = "json")
#Column(columnDefinition = "json")
private Location location;
If you're using Hibernate 5 or later, then the JSON type is registered automatically by the Postgre92Dialect.
Otherwise, you need to register it yourself:
public class PostgreSQLDialect extends PostgreSQL91Dialect {
public PostgreSQL92Dialect() {
super();
this.registerColumnType( Types.JAVA_OBJECT, "json" );
}
}
The JsonType works with Oracle, SQL Server, PostgreSQL, MySQL, and H2 as well. Check out the project page for more details about how you can map JSON column types on various relational database systems.

Yes, this wouldn't be a problem and is actually a fairly common practice.
In the recent years I have come to realize that sometimes, however, it is not a good idea to always build your views based on your domain directly. You can take a look at this post:
http://codebetter.com/jpboodhoo/2007/09/27/screen-bound-dto-s/
It is also known as "Presentation Model":
http://martinfowler.com/eaaDev/PresentationModel.html
The idea behind that is basically the following:
Imagine you have the domain entry User, who looks like that :
#Entity
#Data
public class User {
#Id private UUID userId;
private String username;
#OneToMany private List<Permission> permissions;
}
Let's now imagine you have a view where you wanna display that user's name, and you totally don't care about the permissions. If you use your approach of immediately returning the User to the view, Hibernate will make an additional join from the Permissions table because event though the permissions are lazily loaded by default, there is no easy way to signal to the jackson serializer or whatever you are using, that you don't care about them in this particular occasion, so jackson will try to unproxy them (if your transaction is still alive by the time your object is put for json serialization, otherwise you get a nasty exception). Yes, you can add a #JsonIgnore annotation on the permissions field, but then if you need it in some other view, you are screwed.
That a very basic example, but you should get the idea that sometimes your domain model can't be immediately used to be returned to the presentation layer, due to both code maintainability and performance issues.

We were using such approach to simplify design and get rid of many dtos (we were abusing them too much). Basically, it worked for us.
However, in our REST model we were trying to do not expose other relations for an object as you can always create another REST resources to access them.
So we just put #JsonIgnore annotations to relations mappings like #OneToMany or #ManyToOnemaking them transient.
Another problem I see that if you still like to return these relations you would have to use Join.FETCH strategy for them or move transaction management higher so that transaction still exists when a response is serialized to JSON (Open Session In View Pattern).
On my opinion these two solutions are not so good.

You can map the json request without using any library at REST web-services (Jersy)
this sample of code:
This hibernate entity called book:
#Entity
#Table(name = "book", schema = "cashcall")
public class Book implements java.io.Serializable {
private int id;
private Author author; // another hibernate entity
private String bookName;
//setters and getters
}
This web-services function
#POST
#Produces(MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON)
#Consumes(MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON)
public String addBook(Book book) {
String bookName=book.getName();
return bookName;
}
This is sample json request:
{
"bookName" : "Head First Java",
"author" : {
"id" : 1
}
}

Since you are just starting, perhaps you could use Spring Data REST?
This is the project: http://projects.spring.io/spring-data-rest/
And here are some simple examples:
https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-data-book/tree/master/rest
https://github.com/olivergierke/spring-restbucks
As you can see in the examples, there are no extra DTOs beyond the #Entity annotated POJOs.