I have a couple of entities with one-to-one relationships as such:
#Entity(name="stores")
public class Store implements Serializable {
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy= GenerationType.AUTO )
#Column(name="id")
private int id ;
// How should I set goal ?
private Goal goal ;
}
and:
#Entity(name="storeGoals")
public class Goal {
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy= GenerationType.AUTO )
#Column(name="goalId")
private int id ;
#OneToOne()
#JoinColumn(name = "storeId")
private Store store ;
}
My problem is how can I set the "goal" field in the Store entity?
Normally, I would do something like:
#Entity(name="stores")
public class Store implements Serializable {
...
#OneToOne()
#JoinColumn(name = "goalId")
private Goal goal ;
...
but in this case I can't, because the underlying "stores" table belongs to another application and can't be modified (by adding a "goalId" column).
What I need is for an instance of Store to be able to lookup its goal by finding a record in the storeGoals table that has the same storeId (Realizing of course that I could run into referential integrity issues...)
Any ideas on how to do that?
Thanks!
You might be looking for what is known as a bidirectional OneToOne relationship. This works the same as a bidirectional ManyToMany or OneToMany/ManyToOne relationship in that one side 'owns' the relationship and has control over setting the value in the foreign key; the other specifies it is 'mappedby' the other side, and so operates as if it is read-only. Both sides need to be kept in synch with any changes manually though; if you set one side but do not reflect the change in the other, JPA will not fix this for you.
In this case:
public class Store implements Serializable {
..
#OneToOne(mappedby="store")
private Goal goal ;
}
Related
PROBLEM: I have read-only data in a table. Its rows have no id - only composite key define its identity. I want it as a Value Object (in DDD terms) in my app.
RESEARCH: But if I put an #Embeddable annotation instead of #Entity with #Id id field, then javax.persistence.metamodel doesn't see it and says Not an embeddable on Metamodel metamodel.embeddable(MyClass.class);. I could wrap it with an #Entity class and autogenerate id, but this is not what I architectually intended to achieve.
QUESTION: Is JPA Embeddable a Value Object? Can Embeddable exist without a parent Entity and represent a Table?
There are many articles on the topic that show this is a real JPA inconvenience:
http://thepaulrayner.com/persisting-value-objects/
https://www.baeldung.com/spring-persisting-ddd-aggregates
https://paucls.wordpress.com/2017/03/04/ddd-building-blocks-value-objects/
https://medium.com/#benoit.averty/domain-driven-design-storing-value-objects-in-a-spring-application-with-a-relational-database-e7a7b555a0e4
Most of them suggest solutions based on normalised relational database, with a header-entity as one table and its value-objects as other separate tables.
My frustration was augmented with the necessity to integrate with a non-normalized read-only table. The table had no id field and meant to store object-values. No bindings with a header-entity table. To map it with JPA was a problem, because only entities with id are mapped.
The solution was to wrap MyValueObject class with MyEntity class, making MyValueObject its composite key:
#Data
#Entity
#Table(schema = "my_schema", name = "my_table")
public class MyEntity {
#EmbeddedId MyValueObject valueObject;
}
As a slight hack, to bypass JPA requirements for default empty constructor and not to break the immutability of Value Object, we add it as private and sacrifice final modifier for fields. Privacy and absence of setters conforms the initial DDD idea of Value Object:
// #Value // Can't use, unfortunately.
#Embeddable
#Immutable
#AllArgsConstructor
#Getter
#NoArgsConstructor(staticName = "private") // Makes MyValueObject() private.
public class MyValueObject implements Serializable {
#Column(name = "field_one")
private String myString;
#Column(name = "field_two")
private Double myDouble;
#Transient private Double notNeeded;
}
Also there is a handful Lombok's #Value annotaion to configure value objects.
Let´s assume these two entities:
#Entity
public class MyEntity {
#Id private String id;
#OneToMany(mappedBy = "myEntity", cascade = ALL) private Set<MyEntityPredecessor> predecessors;
}
#Entity
public class MyEntityPredecessor{
#Id private String id;
#ManyToOne(name = "entityID", nullable = false) private MyEntity myEntity;
#ManyToOne(name = "entityPre", nullable = false) private MyEntity predecessor;
}
When I try to call a delete with Spring Boot Data (JPA) with a MyEntity Instance, it will work some times (I see the select and then the delete statements in correct order), but sometimes it will try to run an update on the second entity trying to set the "entityPre" Field to null (even thoug it is set to nullable=falsE), causing the DB to send an error (null not allowed!! from DB constraint).
Strangely, this will happen at "random" calls to the delete...
I just call "myEntityRepository.getOne(id)", and then myEntityRepository.delete() with the result... There is no data difference in the DB between calls, the data structure has no null values when calling the delete method, so that should not be the reason.
Why is JPA sometimes trying to call updates on the Predecessor Table, and sometimes directly deleting the values? Am I missing something?
Add a similar ManyToOne annotated set to MyEntity which refers to the other non-nullable property, like:
#OneToMany(mappedBy = "predecessor", cascade = ALL) private Set<MyEntityPredecessor> other;
some explanation:
The issue doesn't happen randomly, but happen when you try to delete an entity which is linked to one (or more) MyEntityPredecessor via the predecessor property (which is mapped to the entityPre field)
Only the other field (entityID) is mapped back to the MyEntity object, so the deletion-cascade only happens via by that field.
Here are my entities:
#Entity
public class Actor {
private List<Film> films;
#ManyToMany
#JoinTable(name="film_actor",
joinColumns =#JoinColumn(name="actor_id"),
inverseJoinColumns = #JoinColumn(name="film_id"))
public List<Film> getFilms(){
return films;
}
//... more in here
Moving on:
#Entity
public class Film {
private List actors;
#ManyToMany
#JoinTable(name="film_actor",
joinColumns =#JoinColumn(name="film_id"),
inverseJoinColumns = #JoinColumn(name="actor_id"))
public List<Actor> getActors(){
return actors;
}
//... more in here
And the join table:
#javax.persistence.IdClass(com.tugay.sakkillaa.model.FilmActorPK.class)
#javax.persistence.Table(name = "film_actor", schema = "", catalog = "sakila")
#Entity
public class FilmActor {
private short actorId;
private short filmId;
private Timestamp lastUpdate;
So my problem is:
When I remove a Film from an Actor and merge that Actor, and check the database, I see that everything is fine. Say the actor id is 5 and the film id is 3, I see that these id 's are removed from film_actor table..
The problem is, in my JSF project, altough my beans are request scoped and they are supposed to be fetching the new information, for the Film part, they do not. They still bring me Actor with id = 3 for Film with id = 5. Here is a sample code:
#RequestScoped
#Named
public class FilmTableBackingBean {
#Inject
FilmDao filmDao;
List<Film> allFilms;
public List<Film> getAllFilms(){
if(allFilms == null || allFilms.isEmpty()){
allFilms = filmDao.getAll();
}
return allFilms;
}
}
So as you can see this is a request scoped bean. And everytime I access this bean, allFilms is initially is null. So new data is fetched from the database. However, this fetched data does not match with the data in the database. It still brings the Actor.
So I am guessing this is something like a cache issue.
Any help?
Edit: Only after I restart the Server, the fetched information by JPA is correct.
Edit: This does not help either:
#Entity
public class Film {
private short filmId;
#ManyToMany(mappedBy = "films", fetch = FetchType.EAGER)
public List<Actor> getActors(){
return actors;
}
The mapping is wrong.
The join table is mapped twice: once as the join table of the many-to-many association, and once as an entity. It's one or the other, but not both.
And the many-to-many is wrong as well. One side MUST be the inverse side and use the mappedBy attribute (and thus not define a join table, which is already defined at the other, owning side of the association). See example 7.24, and its preceeding text, in the Hibernate documentation (which also applies to other JPA implementations)
Side note: why use a short for an ID? A Long would be a wiser choice.
JB Nizet is correct, but you also need to maintain both sides of relationships as there is caching in JPA. The EntityManager itself caches managed entities, so make sure your JSF project is closing and re obtaining EntityManagers, clearing them if they are long lived or refreshing entities that might be stale. Providers like EclipseLink also have a second level cache http://wiki.eclipse.org/EclipseLink/Examples/JPA/Caching
the question and problem is pretty simple, though annoying and I am looking for a global solution, because it's application-wide problem for us.
The code below is really not interesting but I post it for clarification!
We use PostgreSQL database with JPA 2.0 and we generated all the facades and entities, of course we did some editing but not much really.
The problem is that every entity contains a Collection of its children, which however (for us only?) is NOT updated after creation a children element.
The objects are written to database, you can select them easily, but what we really would like to see is the refreshed collection of children in parent object.
Why is this happening? If we (manually) refresh the entity of parent em.refresh(parent) it does the trick but it would mean for us a lot of work in Facades I guess. But maybe there is no other way?
Thanks for support!
/* EDIT */
I guess it has to be some annotation problem or cache or something, but I've already tried
#OneToMany(mappedBy = "idquestion", orphanRemoval=true, fetch= FetchType.EAGER)
and
#Cacheable(false)
didn't work properly.
/* EDIT */
Some sample code for understanding.
Database level:
CREATE TABLE Question (
idQuestion SERIAL,
questionContent VARCHAR,
CONSTRAINT Question_idQuestion_PK PRIMARY KEY (idQuestion)
);
CREATE TABLE Answer (
idAnswer SERIAL,
answerContent VARCHAR,
idQuestion INTEGER,
CONSTRAINT Answer_idAnswer_PK PRIMARY KEY (idAnswer),
CONSTRAINT Answer_idQuestion_FK FOREIGN KEY (idQuestion) REFERENCES Question(idQuestion)
);
Than we have generated some Entities in Netbeans 7.1, all of them look similar to:
#Entity
#Table(name = "question", catalog = "jobfairdb", schema = "public")
#XmlRootElement
#NamedQueries({ BLAH BLAH BLAH...})
public class Question implements Serializable {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
#Id
#Basic(optional = false)
#NotNull
#GeneratedValue(strategy= GenerationType.IDENTITY)
#Column(name = "idquestion", nullable = false)
private Integer idquestion;
#Size(max = 2147483647)
#Column(name = "questioncontent", length = 2147483647)
private String questioncontent;
#OneToMany(mappedBy = "idquestion", orphanRemoval=true)
private Collection<Answer> answerCollection;
Getters... setters...
We use (again) generated facades for them, all implementing AbstractFacade like:
public abstract class CCAbstractFacade<T> {
private Class<T> entityClass;
public CCAbstractFacade(Class<T> entityClass) {
this.entityClass = entityClass;
}
protected abstract EntityManager getEntityManager();
public void create(T entity) {
getEntityManager().persist(entity);
}
The father entity is updated automatically if you use container managed transactions and you fetch the collection after the transaction is complete. Otherwise, you have to update yourself the collection.
This article explains in detail this behaviour: JPA implementation patterns: Bidirectional associations
EDIT:
The simplest way to use Container Managed Transactions is to have transaction-type="JTA" in persistence.xml and use Container-Managed Entity Managers.
You seem to be setting the ManyToOne side, but not adding to the OneToMany, you have to do both.
In JPA, and in Java in general you must update both sides of a bi-directional relationship, otherwise the state of your objects will not be in sync. Not doing so, would be wrong in any Java code, not just JPA.
There is no magic in JPA that will do this for you. EclipseLink does have a magic option for this that you could set through a customizer (mapping.setRelationshipPartnerAttributeName()), but it is not recommended, fixing your code to be correct is the best solution.
See,
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Java_Persistence/Relationships#Object_corruption.2C_one_side_of_the_relationship_is_not_updated_after_updating_the_other_side
I have the following situation:
(source: kawoolutions.com)
JPA 2.0 mappings (It might probably suffice to consider only the Zip and ZipId classes as this is where the error seems to come from):
#Entity
#Table(name = "GeoAreas")
#Inheritance(strategy = InheritanceType.JOINED)
#DiscriminatorColumn(name = "discriminator", discriminatorType = DiscriminatorType.STRING)
public abstract class GeoArea implements Serializable
{
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.IDENTITY)
#Column(name = "id")
protected Integer id;
#Column(name = "name")
protected String name;
...
}
#Entity
#Table(name = "Countries")
#DiscriminatorValue(value = "country")
public class Country extends GeoArea
{
#Column(name = "iso_code")
private String isoCode;
#Column(name = "iso_nbr")
private String isoNbr;
#Column(name = "dial_code")
private Integer dialCode = null;
...
}
#Entity
#Table(name = "Zips")
#IdClass(value = ZipId.class)
public class Zip implements Serializable
{
#Id
#Column(name = "code")
private String code;
#Id
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "country_code", referencedColumnName = "iso_code")
private Country country = null;
...
}
public class ZipId implements Serializable
{
private String country;
private String code;
...
}
Pretty simple design:
A country is a geo area and inherits the ID from the root class. A ZIP code is unique within its country so it combines an ISO code plus the actual ZIP code as PK. Thus Zips references Countries.iso_code, which has an alternative unique, not-null key on it (reference to non-primary key column!). The Zip.country association gets an #Id annotation and its variable name is the same as the one in its ID class ZipId.
However I get this error message from within Eclipse (also using JBoss Tools):
Validation Message:
"The attribute matching the ID class attribute country does not have the correct type java.lang.String"
Why is this wrong in JPA 2.0 syntax (see #Id annotation on Zip.country)? I don't think it is. After all the types of Zip.country and ZipId.country can't be the same for JPA 2 because of the #Id annotation on the #ManyToOne and the PK being a simple integer, which becomes the ID class counterpart. Can anyone check/confirm this please?
Could this be a bug, probably in JBoss Tools? (Which software component is reporting the above bug? When putting the 3 tables and entity classes into a new JavaSE project there's no error shown with the exact code...)
Answering own question...
The way I modeled the reference, I use a String because the FK points to the iso_code column in the Countries table which is a CHAR(2), so basically my mapping is right. However, the problem is that JPA 2.0 doesn't allow anything but references to primary key columns. This is what the Eclipse Dali JPA validator shows.
Taken from "Pro JPA 2.0" by Keith/Schincariol p.283 top, "Basic Rules for Derived Identifiers" (rule #6): "If an id attribute in an entity is a relationship, then the type of the matching attribute in the id class is of the same type as the primary key type of the target entity in the relationship (whether the primary key type is a simple type, an id class, or an embedded id class)."
Personal addendum:
I disagree with JPA 2.0 having this limitation. JPA 1.0 mappings allow references to non-PK columns. Note, that using JPA 1.0 mappings instead isn't what I'm looking for. I'd rather be interested in the reason why this restriction was imposed on JPA 2.0. The JPA 2.0 is definitely limiting.
I'd say focus your attention on the CompoundIdentity relationship. See this question, and my answer there
Help Mapping a Composite Foreign Key in JPA 2.0
ZipId has no "country" field in your case
I have not tested your code, but it looks pretty much related to the use of the #PrimareKeyJoinColumn annotation.
The JPA 2.0 specification in section 11.1.40 states:
The PrimaryKeyJoinColumn annotation is
used to join the primary table of an
entity subclass in the JOINED mapping
strategy to the primary table of its
superclass; it is used within a
SecondaryTable annotation to join a
secondary table to a primary table;
and it may be used in a OneToOne
mapping in which the primary key of
the referencing entity is used as a
foreign key to the referenced
entity[108].
The example in the spec looks like your case.
#Entity
#Table(name="CUST")
#Inheritance(strategy=JOINED)
#DiscriminatorValue("CUST")
public class Customer { ... }
#Entity
#Table(name="VCUST")
#DiscriminatorValue("VCUST")
#PrimaryKeyJoinColumn(name="CUST_ID")
public class ValuedCustomer extends Customer { ... }
I hope that helps!