For the context, client-side I use the MVP pattern, so the view with the One list knows only the ID, and when my new Many is received on the server, I want to be able to just update the One's foreign key, with a "setOneId" or an empty One object with an ID set to the wanted value.
So I try to create a many-to-one unidirectional in DataNucleus, and I'm struggling a bit. I'm ok to use JDO or JPA, I don't really care. In JPA, I tried this :
#Entity
public class Many {
#Id
String id;
#ManyToOne
#Join(name = "idOne")
One one;
}
#Entity
public class One {
#Id
String id;
}
It's almost what I want. The one-to-many is created but with a join table. I want to have a direct relation. And when I insert/update a Many, I don't want to insert/update the related One, just update the idOne with the good id in my Many object.
I found this blogpost, but it's with Hibernate, and I think it still use a join table :
#Entity
public class Many {
#Id
public String id;
#Column(name="idOne")
private String idOne;
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name="idOne", nullable=false, insertable=false, updatable=false)
private One one;
}
I tried it, but I got exactly this error.
I don't understand how I am struggling with that. My goal is to have a table that keep some reference data (like a list of country as the class One), and a list of "working item" (like a town as the class Many) that I create/update without create/update the reference data, just its foreign key in the Many object.
If its a unidirectional association, and Many is the owning side (as per your second example), you are heading in the wrong direction. It doesn't make much sense to delegate the update and insert responsibility on the owning side of a unidirectional relationship (as done with the insertable=false and updateable=false).
EDIT: updated answer
So what you want is a many-to-one, with a foreign key column on the owning side. Try this
#Entity
public class Many {
#Id
String id;
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "foreignKeyColumn")
One one;
}
#Entity
public class A {
#Id
String id;
#OneToOne(cascade=CascadeType.ALL)
B b;
}
#Entity
public class B {
#Id
String id;
}
and then if you persisted initial objects as
tx.begin();
A a = new A("FirstA");
B b1 = new B("FirstB");
B b2 = new B("SecondB");
a.setB(b1);
em.persist(a);
em.persist(b2);
tx.commit();
... (some time later)
tx.begin();
A a = em.find(A.class, "FirstA");
B b2 = em.getReference(B.class, "SecondB");
// update the B in A to the second one
a.setB(b2);
tx.commit();
This updates the FK between A and B. Can't get simpler
Related
According to the Spring JPA documentation, in the Many-To-Many relationship (student - course) we must create a new table (student_course)
class student ---> class student_course <--- class course
According to the documentation, if we want to add a new property to the table (student_course) we must create a new class that will contain the compound keys of the student class and the course class
#Embeddable
class CourseStudentKey implements Serializable {
#Column(name="student_id")
Long studentId;
#Column(name = "course_id")
Long courseId;
}
_ Then to the Student_Course class we assign the id of type CourseStudentKey that contains the compound keys:
#Entity
class StudentCourse {
#EmbeddedId
CourseRatingKey id;
#ManyToOne
#MapsId("studentId")
#JoinColumn(name = "student_id")
Student student;
#ManyToOne
#MapsId("courseId")
#JoinColumn(name = "course_id")
Course course;
}
My question is: What is the difference in creating only the StudentCourse class and doing the #ManyToOne mapping to the Student class and the Course class??... in this way we can also add attributes to the StudentCourse class
_Clase Student
#Entity
class Student {
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy=GenerationType.IDENTITY)
private idStudent;
#JsonIgnore
#OneToMany(mappedBy = "student")
List<StudentCourse> studentCourses = new ArrayList<>();
_Clase Course
#Entity
class Course{
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy=GenerationType.IDENTITY)
private idCourse;
#JsonIgnore
#OneToMany(mappedBy = "course")
List<StudentCourse> studentCourses = new ArrayList<>();
}
_Clase StudentCourse
#Entity
class StudentCourse {
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy=GenerationType.IDENTITY)
private idStudentCourse;
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "student_id")
Student student;
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "course_id")
Course course;
}
The only difference in the examples posted by you, is, in case of Embeddable, the student_id course_id would be a composite key, so there would only be one row allowed per student_id course_id combination. Whereas, in the second example, you have used generated primary key, ensuring multiple rows for each student_id course_id combination. This would be particularly useful if the student fails the course for the first time and attempts it again. You can then add parameters like attemped_on, is_completed, etc. to the student_course entity
Your examples show differences in the key, and as Chetan's answer states, this affects the key used in the table. The choices here isn't necessarily in using a separate class/embbeded class, but in using a single generated Identifier vs using a composite primary key for the entity.
In the embedded example you've posted, you have a composite primary key based on foreign key mappings. There are many other ways to map this same setup though, but the common parts will be:
composite PKs need an ID class. It doesn't have to be embedded in your class (see JPA derived IDs) but does need to exist. This is part of the JPA spec and allows em.find operations to deal with a single object.
ID values are immutable. They cannot change without remove/persist operations as per the JPA specification. Many providers don't like you even attempting to modify them in an Entity instance. In your embeddable example, you cannot change the references, while in the generated id example, you can.
It also affects what JPA requires you to use in foreign keys. If you use a composite ID, any references to that entity (*ToOne) that require foreign keys to that table are required to use its defined IDs - all columns that make up that ID. Some providers don't enforce this, but it will affect entity caching; since entities are cached on their IDs, using something else as the target of FKs might mean database hits for entities already in the cache.
I'm starting to study jpa now and I have a question about the concept of owner and non-owner, according to an article I read, the non-owner will be every attribute that doesn't have mappedBy, but when there is a bidirectional relationship, without the mappedBy notation, I am not sure if there is an owner of a relationship, I also noticed that the mappedBy option only appears when it is #OneToMany and not #ManyToOne, that is, what really defines the owner of the relationship and how it affects in practice
initial data which is loaded every time when running the application
Sql
insert into client (id, name) values (null, 'Marina');
insert into client (id, name) values (null, 'Joana');
insert into demand(id, name) values(null, "Banana");
insert into demand(id, name) values(null, "Apple");
insert into demand(id, name) values(null, "jabuticaba");
Demand.java
#Getter
#Setter
#EqualsAndHashCode(onlyExplicitlyIncluded = true)
#Entity
#Table(name = "demand")
public class Demand {
#Id
#EqualsAndHashCode.Include
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.IDENTITY)
private Integer id;
#ManyToOne
private Client client;
private String name;
}
Client.java
#Getter
#Setter
#EqualsAndHashCode(onlyExplicitlyIncluded = true)
#Entity
#Table(name = "client")
public class Client {
#EqualsAndHashCode.Include
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.IDENTITY)
private Integer id;
private String name;
#OneToMany
private List<Demand> demand;
}
Main.java
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
EntityManagerFactory entityManagerFactory =
Persistence.createEntityManagerFactory("unit");
EntityManager entityManager = entityManagerFactory.createEntityManager();
Client client = entityManager.find(Client.class, 1);
Demand demand1 = entityManager.find(Demand.class, 1);
Demand demand2 = entityManager.find(Demand.class, 2);
Demand demand3 = entityManager.find(Demand.class, 3);
entityManager.getTransaction().begin();
client.setDemand(Arrays.asList(demand1, demand2, demand3));
entityManager.getTransaction().commit();
client = entityManager.find(Client.class, 1);
System.out.println("Client name: " + client.getName() + " Demand name " +
client.getDemand().get(0).getName());
System.out.println("Client name: " + client.getName() + " Demand name " +
client.getDemand().get(1).getName());
}
}
My final question is, who is the owner of the relation, since I didn't use mappeBy ? Another thing, I noticed that it creates an intermediate table, when I don't use mappedBy, if anyone can give me many details on how mappedBy works, I would be very grateful.
Your assumption is wrong. Any field without a mappedby IS the owner - mappedby signifies the 'other side' defines the relationship, and so the other side owns it. It is only used when using java bidirectional relationships to map over database unidirectional foreign keys.
In your
#ManyToOne
private Client client;
and
#OneToMany
private List<Demand> demand;
Example, you've set up two separate relationships that have no connection to each other. Both will 'own' their specific relationship, and the tables will require two separate FK relationships to map; Demand table will have a FK to represent its client, while the Demand table will have another FK setup to represent the Client 1:M to demand relationship.
Now, if you defined them to use the same foreign key, you'd have (or should have) warnings and errors stating that you have two writable mappings for the same foreign key. Both sides would attempt to write into the same foreign key, causing inefficiencies and issues if the object model isn't in synch.
There is no any owner when you don't use mappedBy annotation. Its just relation between two table with independent one. Hibernate doesn't know which column exactly is, so you have to show it which is which.
Suppose I have two database tables, Product and ProductDetails.
create table Product
{
product_id int not null,
product_name varchar(100) not null,
PRIMARY KEY (product_id)
}
create table ProductDetails
{
detail_id int not null,
product_id int not null,
description varchar(100) not null,
PRIMARY KEY (detail_id,product_id),
FOREIGN KEY (product_id) REFERENCES Product(product_id)
}
Each product can have multiple product detail entries, but each product detail can only belong to one product. In SQL, I want to be able to retrieve each product detail but with the product name as well, and I would do that with a join statement.
select p.product_id,pd.detail_id,p.product_name,pd.description
from Product p join ProductDetails pd on p.product_id=pd.product_id
Now I need to have that concept in Spring data JPA form. My current understanding is the following:
#Table(name = "Product")
public class ProductClass
{
private int productID;
private String productName;
}
#Table(name = "ProductDetails")
public class ProductDetailsClass
{
private int detailID;
private int productID;
// this is the part I don't know how to set. #OneToMany? #ManyToOne? #JoinTable? #JoinColumn?
private String productName;
private String description;
}
(I didn't include any attributes such as #Id to keep the code minimal)
What do I need to write to get this private String productName; working?
My research on the #JoinTable and #OneToMany and other attributes just confuses me more.
P.S. This is a legacy Java program I inherited. The private String productName; part wasn't in the original code, but now I need the ProductDetails class to have the productName available.
P.P.S. I want to have a clear understanding of what I'm doing before trying anything and deploying. This is a legacy program deployed to production, and from what I understand, any code changes here can change the database structure as well, and no amount of money is enough to make me want to restore the Java program, the Spring Framework, the Apache server and MySQL database to a working order if anything catastrophic happens. Also I don't really have a development environment to test this. Help...
You research already goes in the right direction: You would need a #OneToMany relationship. The best descriptions for Hibernate has Vlad Mihalcea. On his webpage you could also find a good explanation of those relationships: The best way to map a #OneToMany relationship with JPA and Hibernate.
Firstly, you would have to create the entities correctly (an entity is represented by a table in a relational database).
Unidirectional (#OneToMany)
#Entity
#Table(name = "product")
public class Product
{
#Id
#GeneratedValue
private Long productID;
private String productName;
#OneToMany(cascade = CascadeType.ALL, orphanRemoval = true)
private List<ProductDetail> productDetails;
//Constructors, getters and setters...
}
#Entity
#Table(name = "product_details")
public class ProductDetail
{
#Id
#GeneratedValue
private Long detailID;
private String description;
//Constructors, getters and setters...
}
This is based on a unidirectional relationship. Therefore, each Product knows all the allocated ProductDetails. But the ProductDetails do not have a link to its Products. However, this unidirectional implementation is not recommended. It results in an increase of the size of the database, even its optimisation with #JoinColumn is not ideal because of more SQL calls.
Unidirectional (#ManyToOne)
#Entity
#Table(name = "product")
public class Product
{
#Id
#GeneratedValue
private Long productID;
private String productName;
//Constructors, getters and setters...
}
#Entity
#Table(name = "product_details")
public class ProductDetail
{
#Id
#GeneratedValue
private Long detailID;
private String description;
#ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#JoinColumn(name = product_id)
private Product product;
//Constructors, getters and setters...
}
In this unidirectional relationship only the ProductDetails know which Product is assigned to them. Consider this for a huge number of ProductDetail objects for each Product.
The #JoinColumn annotation specifies the name of the column of the table product_details in which the foreign key to the Product (its id) is saved. It also works without but it is more efficient with this annotation.
Bidirectional (#OneToMany and #ManyToOne)
#Entity
#Table(name = "product")
public class Product
{
#Id
#GeneratedValue
private Long productID;
private String productName;
#OneToMany(mappedBy = "product", cascade = CascadeType.ALL, orphanRemoval = true)
private List<ProductDetail> productDetails;
//Constructors, add, remove method, getters and setters...
}
#Entity
#Table(name = "product_details")
public class ProductDetail
{
#Id
#GeneratedValue
private Long detailID;
private String description;
#ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#JoinColumn(name = product_id)
private Product product;
//Constructors, getters and setters...
}
With a bidirectional relationship objects of both sides (Product and ProductDetail) know which other objects got assigned to them.
But according to Vlad Mihalcea, this should not be used if too many ProductDetails exist per Product.
Also remember to implement proper add and remove methods for list entries (see article again, otherwise weird exceptions).
Miscellaneous
With the cascading, changes in a Product also get applied to its ProductDetails. OrphanRemoval avoids having ProductDetails without a Product.
Product product = new Product("Interesting Product");
product.getProductDetails().add(
new ProductDetails("Funny description")
);
product.getProductDetails().add(
new ProductDetails("Different description")
);
entityManager.persist(product);
Often the question about the correct equals and hashCode methods is a complex puzzle in your head. Especially for bidirectional relationships but also in other situations relying on a database connection it is recommendable to implement them quite simply as described by Vlad.
It is good practice to use objects for primitive data types as well. This gives you the option to retrieve a proper null when calling the getter.
Avoiding eager fetching should be quite clear...
When you now try to retrieve a Product out of the database, the object automatically has a list of all the ProductDetails assigned to it. To achieve this, JPA repositories in Spring could be used. Simple methods do not have to be implemented. When you have the need to customise the functionality more, have a look at this article by Baeldung.
I am absolutly new in Hibernate development and I have the following problem.
I have 2 entity classes that maps 2 DB tables:
1) The first entity class (the main one) is named KM_ProjectInfo and map a DB table named KM_PROJECT.
2) The second entity class is named KM_ProjectInfoStatus and map a DB table named KM_PROJECT_INFO_STATUS.
So the second one represent a specific field of the first one (a status of the row representd by an instance of the KM_ProjectInfo class). Infact I have something like this:
1) KM_ProjectInfo class:
#Entity
#Table(name = "KM_PROJECT")
public class KM_ProjectInfo implements Serializable {
#Id
#GeneratedValue
private Long idProjectInfo;
#Column(name = "name")
private String name;
#Column(name = "technology")
private String technology;
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "idCountry")
private KMCountry country;
#Column(name = "power")
private long power;
#Column(name = "cod")
private String cod;
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "idProjectInfoStatus")
private KM_ProjectInfoStatus status;
// GETTERS & SETTERS
}
2) KM_ProjectInfoStatus:
#Entity
#Table(name = "KM_PROJECT_INFO_STATUS")
public class KM_ProjectInfoStatus implements Serializable {
#Id
#GeneratedValue
private Long idProjectInfoStatus;
#Column(name = "foldertech")
private Long foldertech;
#Column(name = "folderproject")
private Long folderproject;
// GETTERS & SETTERS
}
So, as you can see in the previous snippet, the KM_ProjectInfoStatuss is a field of the KM_ProjectInfo because I want that it contains the primary key of this table as foreign key.
In the logic of my application I want that at one row of the KM_PROJECT table (so at one instance of the KM_ProjectInfo entity class) is associated a single row of the KM_PROJECT_INFO_STATUS (one instance of the KM_ProjectInfoStatus entity class) because it represent a specific status for the KM_PROJECT row.
In my code I have:
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "idProjectInfoStatus")
private KM_ProjectInfoStatus status;
but I think that is wrong because at one row of my first table it is associated a specific single row of the second table. But maybe I am missing something about how Hibernate work.
Can you help me to understand what I am missing? What it work? Why I have #ManyToOne instead #OneToOne?
Tnx
It all depends on how you want to model things. In terms of Database structure, OneToOne and ManyToOne are implemented in the same way:
One or more JoinColumns which makes a foreign key pointing to the primary key of the other table.
So both solutions correctly map to your database, but it depends if you want to allow several KM_ProjectInfo to point to the same KM_ProjectInfoStatus, or only allow a single one.
Note that, even though you would declare a OneToOne, you could still end up with multiple KM_ProjectInfo pointing to the same KM_ProjectInfoStatus if you don't manipulate Hibernate properly.
Here you did not declare the reverse relationship, but if you did, the declaration would have to be different:
In case of a OneToOne, you would have a KM_ProjectInfo member
In case of a OneToMany (reverse of ManyToOne), you would have a Collection<KM_ProjectInfo> member
From the description it seems you want to have one-to-one relationship. That is the project entity should have its very own status not shared by any other project. You could achieve this by using #OneToOne as below.
#Entity
#Table(name = "KM_PROJECT")
public class KM_ProjectInfo implements Serializable {
#Id
#GeneratedValue
private Long idProjectInfo;
#OneToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "idProjectInfoStatus")
private KM_ProjectInfoStatus status;
}
#Entity
#Table(name = "KM_PROJECT_INFO_STATUS")
public class KM_ProjectInfoStatus implements Serializable {
#Id
#GeneratedValue
private Long idProjectInfoStatus;
#OneToOne(mappedBy="idProjectInfoStatus")
private KM_ProjectInfo project;
}
This way you can have specific status for the KM_PROJECT.
Coming back to #ManyToOne, you will want to have this if you want to share the same status with multiple projects, but that's not what you want in your case. I have tried to explain mappings in simple way here One-to-One mapping.
my problem is that I cannot save my entity because it contains another entity, mapped by a key that is also a part of this table's primary key. The table looks like this:
table C:
+-----+------+
| id_A | id_B |
+-----+------+
..where idA is the primary key of table A with EntityA and idB the primary key of table B with EntityB.
so its basically a n-to-m relation. This is the entity I'm using for table C:
#Entity
public class EntityC {
private long idA;
private EntityB b;
#Id
#Column(name = "id_A")
public long getIdA() {
return idA;
}
#Id
#OneToOne(cascade = CascadeType.ALL)
#JoinColumn(name = "id_B")
public EntityB getB() {
return b;
}
...setters are here...
}
Please note that id_A is mapped as is (the id), while id_B is mapped as its object representation, EntityB. This is what I want to do with it:
EntityC c = new EntityC();
c.setIdA(123);
c.setB(new EntityB());
em.persist(c);
tx.commit();
em.close();
I want to persist EntityB ONLY IF I can persist EntityC.
on tx.commit() I get this exception: org.hibernate.TransientObjectException: object references an unsaved transient instance
I suppose this happens because part of the primary key, id_B, is not saved. But i set cascading to all so there should be no problem!
Why is this not working?
EDIT:
When I do this:
em.persist(c.getB());
em.persist(c);
it works. But can't Hibernate/JPA do that automatically? I thought that's what cascading is good for.
EDIT2:
added an embeddedId instead of id_A and id_B:
#Embeddable
public class EntityCID implements Serializable {
public long idA;
#OneToOne(cascade = CascadeType.ALL)
#JoinColumn(name = "id_B", referencedColumnName = "id")
public EntryB b;
}
EntityC now looks like:
#Entity
public class EntityC implements Serializable {
private EntityCID id;
...
#EmbeddedId
public void getId() {
return id;
}
}
but I still get the transient object exception if I don't em.persist(c.getId().b); before em.persist(c). Sticking to that, although it is ugly.
#Trein: it is not bidirectional. EntityB code:
#Entity
public class EntityB implements Serializable {
public long id;
public String text;
}
If you think about it what you are seeing makes perfect sense.
EntityC is is the 'owning side' of the relationship C<>B: it defines the JoinColumn and EntityB has the 'mappedBy' attribute.
So on saving C, order of events would normally be:
insert into C/update C
insert into B/update B
Now in your case this causes issues as obviously C can only be saved if B has been persisted first.
In terms of your statement above: I want to persist "EntityB ONLY IF I can persist EntityC." How can this ever be the case?
JPA has a concept of 'Derived Identifiers', which I am not overly familiar with however is defined in the book Pro JPA as occurring when:
When an identifier in one entity includes a foreign key to another
entity, we call it a derived identifier. Because the entity containing
the derived identifier depends upon another entity for its identity,
we call the first the dependent entity. The entity that it depends
upon is the target of a many-to-one or one-toone relationship from the
dependent entity, and is called the parent entity
Now, despite the original advice that you had two #Id attributes defined and this was wrong it would however appear that having an additional #Id on a 1-2-m is in fact valid in JPA 2 for precisely this case.
The book gives a number of ways of dealing with Derived Identifiers however one example given below looks fairly similar to your case. So you may want to investigate further the #MapsId attribute.
#Entity
public class Project {
#EmbeddedId private ProjectId id;
#MapsId("dept")
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumns({
#JoinColumn(name="DEPT_NUM", referencedColumnName="NUM"),
#JoinColumn(name="DEPT_CTRY", referencedColumnName="CTRY")})
private Department department;
// ...
}
#Embeddable
public class ProjectId implements Serializable {
#Column(name="P_NAME")
private String name;
#Embedded
private DeptId dept;
// ...
}
See further:
How do I properly cascade save a one-to-one, bidirectional relationship on primary key in Hibernate 3.6
Is it a bidirectional relationship? I would suggest you to remove #Id getB() and perform the modifications:
#OneToOne(cascade = CascadeType.ALL, mappedBy = "id_B")
#PrimaryKeyJoinColumn(name = "id_B")
public EntityB getB() {
return b;
}
Your entity class must have only one attribute annotated with #Id. Usually when you need this, you create a class that will store both properties and this will act as a Id Class.
You can not pass new Entity() for reference. Because it won't have any values in it(even primary key). So how can hibernate will insert it as foreign key to the table. And cascade will save your parent object if its not saved,no need to call save method for all. But when you passing new object it won't do.