i have an existing table for TransactionLogs which is either links to a External or to a InternalType. the id's corresponding to the cash adjustment & game transaction are stored in a single column called transaction id and a separate column called type indicates which table is it linked to
Because of the nature of the existing table, i mapped it in a single table inheritance:
#Inheritance(strategy = InheritanceType.SINGLE_TABLE)
#DiscriminatorColumn(name = "TYPE", discriminatorType = DiscriminatorType.INTEGER)
public class TransLog implements Serializable {
#Id
#GeneratedValue
private Long id;
private Integer type;
// getters and setters
}
#Entity
public class InternalAdjustmentTransLog extends TransLog {
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "TransID", nullable = false)
private InternalAdjustmentRecord internalAdjustmentRecord;
// getters and setters
}
#Entity
public class ExternalTransLog extends TransLog {
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "TransID", nullable = false)
private ExternalAdjustmentRecord externalAdjustmentRecord;
}
each of these two subclasses has their subclasses with defined descriminator values..
With the setup given above, there are instances that i need to get a unified data of both
internal and external records. What is the best way to accomplish this? at first i thought it would be enough to use the TransLog as the root class for the query (i'm using jpa criteria). however, i need to get TransId (which are defined in the subclasses and points to 2 different objects of no relationship).
Thanks.
You can make abstract method in TransLog that returns what you need and implement it in both subclasses.
Related
I have one parent entity that has two child entities as attributes.
I want to select all elements from the parent entity that have EITHER a childOne with a given parameter as personal attribute OR childTwo with that same given parameter as personal attribute.
Here are my three classes simplified:
The Parent Object:
#Entity
public class ParentObject {
#Id
private int id;
private int fkChildOne;
private int fkChildTwo;
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "fk_child_one_id", referencedColumnName =
"child_one_id")
private ChildOne childOne;
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "fk_child_one_id", referencedColumnName =
"child_one_id")
private ChildTwo childTwo;
// getters and setters
}
The Child One Object:
#Entity
public class ChildOne {
#Id
private int childOneId;
private String nameChildOne;
#OneToMany
#JoinColumn(name = "fk_child_one_id")
private List<ParentObject> parents;
// getters and setters
}
The Child Two Object:
#Entity
public class ChildTwo {
#Id
private int childOneId;
private String nameChildTwo;
#OneToMany
#JoinColumn(name = "fk_child_two_id")
private List<ParentObject> parents;
// getters and setters
}
The Specs Class:
public static Specification<ParentObject> checkName(String name) {
return Specifications.where(
(root, query, builder) -> {
final Join<ParentObject, ChildOne> joinchildOne =
root.join("childOne");
final Join<ParentObject, ChildTwo > joinchildTwo =
root.join("childTwo");
return builder.or(
builder.equal(joinchildOne .get("nameChildOne"), name),
builder.equal(joinchildTwo .get("nameChildTwo"), name)
);
}
);
}
When this spec is called in my service, I get no results. However, if I comment out one of the two joins and the corresponding Predicate in my builder.or method, then I get some results but they obviously don't match what I'm looking for, which is to select every ParentObject that have either ChildOne with that parameter or ChildTwo with that paramater.
Any clue what's wrong with the code ?
Finally got the solution : to fetch all the corresponding results, I had to add the type of the join which would be left join, since I wanted to fetch all ParentObjects regardless of owning childOne or ChildTwo objects.
final Join<ParentObject, ChildOne> joinchildOne =
root.join("childOne", JoinType.LEFT);
final Join<ParentObject, ChildTwo > joinchildTwo =
root.join("childTwo", JoinType.LEFT);
Great, now you have to choose if you need to join or fetch.To optimize the query and the memory, you should establish the relations as Lazy (#ManyToMany (fetch = FetchType.LAZY)), so you will only bring the objects that you demand.
The main difference is that Join defines the crossing of tables in a variable and allows you to use it, to extract certain fields in the select clause, for example, on the other hand, fetch makes it feed all the objects of that property. On your example,
a select from parent with join of children (once the relation is set to lazy) would only bring initialized objects of type parent, however if you perform a fetch, it would bring the parent and child objects initialized.
Another modification I would make is to change the type of the identifier to non-primitive, so that it accepts null values, necessary for insertion using sequences
I'm starting a project to know more in detail JPA.
Context:
At the end of his internship, the student has a report to make and a presentation in front of his professor to do about the internship.
I've a database, which is called "grade_management". It must contains a "student", "presentation", "report", "professor" and a "mark" (there are several rating criteria such as expression, quality of powerpoint ...) table. But now it's empty, since I want to make it throught JPA.
I've a "Presentation" class. Which countain this:
#Entity
public class Presentation implements Serializable {
#Id
#GeneratedValue (strategy=GenerationType.AUTO)
private int presentation_id;
private Date date;
private mark_id;
private int professor_id;
public Soutenance() {}
public Soutenance(Date date) {
this.date = date;
}
}
But the Presentation table contain 2 foreign key: professor_id and mark_id.
My question is: How can I indicate that both of them are foreign key ?
I'm sorry if I'm not clear, don't hesitation to ask question.
Cordially
You shouldn't reference other entities by their ID, but by a direct reference to the entity.
Something like that :
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "mark_id", referencedColumnName = "id")
private Mark mark; // supposed here that mark_id if link to entity `Mark`
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "professor_id", referencedColumnName = "id") // suppose "id" is the column name of the PK inside the table Professor.
private Professor professor; // supposed here that professor_id if link to entity `Professor`
This code is supposing that you use an unidirectional relation.
For bidirectional you have to define this in the other side (Mark/Professor type)
#OneToMany(mappedBy = "professor")
private Presentation presentation;
From your explanation, it looks like you have a Database named grade_management and in that database you have "student", "presentation", "report", "professor" and a "mark" tables (i.e: which are #Entity by themselves defined in their separate respective classes )
I'm not sure whether you have defined them or not. If not then you have to define them first and then use the refactored code mentioned below.
So, you will have many-to-one relation mapping. You can annotate your foreign keys belonging to different tables using #ManyToOne annotation to indicate relation type and #JoinColumn annotation to indicate that this entity has a foreign key to the referenced table.
You can redefine your Presentation class show below:
#Entity
#Table(name = "Presentation")
public class Presentation implements Serializable {
#Id
#Column(name="presentation_id")
#GeneratedValue (strategy=GenerationType.AUTO)
private int presentation_id;
private Date date;
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "mark_id")
private Mark mark_id;
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "professor_id")
private Professor professor_id;
public Soutenance() {}
public Soutenance(Date date) {
this.date = date;
}
//getter and setter
}
Also, if you need more information to read upon for yourself you can always checkout this Hibernate Documentation that explains everything you'll need to know.
I have requirement where I need to insert user name and group name to which the user belongs (both available in SecurityContext) in the same table.
class Entity
{
#createdBy
String username
#createdBy
String groupname
other fields ...
}
As per requirement. I cant solve this issue by making a user class and referencing it through a foreign key.
With current implementation of AuditingHandler both fields are getting the same value. How do I make sure they get respective values.
Can this be achieved using current implementation ?
If not thn how can I provide custom implementation of AuditingHandler ?
You could make a separate embeddable class and annotate it with #CreatedBy in your parent class. One way is to define a bean implementing AuditorAware, then you can make it return custom object, containing your two required fields. For example, your parent class would look like this (note the listener annotation):
#Entity
#EntityListeners(AuditingEntityListener.class)
public class AuditedEntity {
#Id
#GeneratedValue(generator = "uuid")
#GenericGenerator(name = "uuid", strategy = "uuid")
private String id;
#Embedded
#CreatedBy
private AuditorDetails createdBy;
// setters and getters
}
where AuditorDetails is:
#Embeddable
public class AuditorDetails {
private String username;
private String groupname;
// setters and getters
}
and finally, your AuditorAware bean:
#Component
class AuditorAwareImpl implements AuditorAware<AuditorDetails> {
#Override
public AuditorDetails getCurrentAuditor() {
return new AuditorDetails()
.setUsername("someUser")
.setGroupname("someGroup");
}
}
AuditingHandler fetches your custom AuditorDetails from your AuditorAware bean (it must be single bean implementing it) and sets it in your auditable entity.
In many sources I have read PrimaryKey Classes and even JPA2 entities should be serializable.
IN my example (legacy database) there is a relationship between employee and languages:
Employee Class:
#Entity
#IdClass(EmpleadoId.class)
#Table(name = "NO_INFGRAEMPL")
public class Empleado {
#Id
#Column(name = "IGECOMPANIA", unique = true)
private String compania;
#Id
#Column(name = "IGENUMEROIDENTIFIC", unique = true)
private String numeroIdentificacion;
//...
}
Employee Compound PrimaryKey Class:
public class EmpleadoId {
private String compania;
private String numeroIdentificacion;
//...
}
Employee Language SKill Class:
#Entity
#IdClass(IdiomaEmpleadoId.class)
#Table(name = "NO_IDIOMEMPLE")
public class IdiomaEmpleado {
#Id
#ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#JoinColumns(value = {
#JoinColumn(name= "IEMCOMPANIA", referencedColumnName = "IGECOMPANIA"),
#JoinColumn(name = "IEMEMPLEADO", referencedColumnName = "IGENUMEROIDENTIFIC")
})
private Empleado empleado;
#Id
#ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#JoinColumn(name = "IEMIDIOMA")
private Idioma idioma;
#Column(name = "IEMNIVELLECTURA")
private String nivelLectura;
//...
}
Employee Language Skill Compound PrimaryKey Class:
public class IdiomaEmpleadoId {
private EmpleadoId empleado;
private String idioma;
//...
}
Language Class:
#Entity
#Table(name = "NO_IDIOMAS")
public class Idioma {
#Id
#Column(name = "IDICODIGO")
private String codigo;
#Column(name = "IDIDESCRIPCION")
private String descripcion;
//...
}
I am using EclipseLink JPA2 Provider under a J2SE application and it is not giving me any exceptions.
My questions are:
Why is it not giving me exceptions? Is it not enforced to have Serializable?
Is it safe to continue this way or should I definitely implemente serializable?.
In which ones?, JPA2 Entities or PrimaryKey Classes?
Thanks a lot for the help.
JPA specification contains such a requirement (JSR-317 secion 2.4 Primary Keys and Entity Identity):
The primary key class must be serializable.
If EclipseLink really doesn't enforce this requirement, it's an implementation detail of EclipseLink and I wouldn't recommend you to rely on it.
However, there are no requirements on serializability of entities, except for the following one which looks more like a recommendation than a requirement:
If an entity instance is to be passed by value as a detached object (e.g., through a remote interface), the
entity class must implement the Serializable interface.
Nothing is required to be serializable, but it seems it is requried by the spec (10x to axtavt) for primary keys, although there is no direct need for it.
Serialization is needed if the objects are transferred over-the-wire or persisted to disk, so I can't see the reason behind that decision. However, you should conform to it.
Primary key classes have to implement serializable and composite-ID class must implement serializable are two different questions.
I am going to answer you both, and hope it will help you to distinguish and understand holistically.
Primary key classes have to implement serializable:
Note: It could work without its iplementation also.
JPA specification contains such a requirement (JSR-317 secion 2.4 Primary Keys and Entity Identity):
The primary key class must be serializable.
However, there are no requirements on serializability of entities, so it's a recommendation than a requirement
exception:
If an entity instance is to be passed by value as a detached object (e.g., through a remote interface), the entity class must implement the Serializable interface.
Composite-ID class must implement serializable.
The id is used as a key to index loaded objects in the session.
The session object needs to be serializable, hence all objects referenced by it must be serializable as well.
In case of CompositeIds the class itself is used as the id.
I have 2 entities:
#Entity
public class Elements implements Serializable {
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.AUTO)
private Long id;
private Owner owner;
}
#Entity
public class Owner implements Serializable {
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.AUTO)
private Long id;
#OneToMany(fetch=FetchType.LAZY)
List<Elements> elements;
}
Suppose I want to fetch all elemets bellonging to the owner from Elements Table and therfore I use:
TypedQuery query=em.createQuery("SELECT elem FROM Elements elem WHERE
elem.owner:=elemOwner", Elements.class);
query.setParameter("elemOwner", ownerObjectFetchFromDataBase);
List<TrendUsers> userList=query.getResultList();
But I get the following error:
Comparisons between 'BLOB' and 'BLOB' are not supported. Types must be comparable. String types must also have matching collation.
If collation does not match, a possible solution is to cast operands to force them to the default collation...
Is there any way I can Select from Elements Table and in the WHERE clause use object (and not just String,int...)?
(p.s I also tried the query below and it didn't work:
TypedQuery query=em.createQuery("SELECT elem FROM Elements elem WHERE elem.owner.id:=elemOwner", Elements.class);
query.setParameter("elemOwner", ownerObjectFetchFromDataBase.id);
List userList=query.getResultList();
)
Thanks
You need to mark the Owner als a ManyToOne.
#Entity public class Elements implements Serializable {
...snip ...
#ManyToOne(fetch=FetchType.LAZY)
#JoinColumn(name="OWNER_ID")
private Owner owner;
}
#Entity public class Owner implements Serializable {
.. snip ...
#OneToMany(fetch=FetchType.LAZY, mappedBy="owner")
List<Elements> elements;
}
Right now you try to store the serialized owner in Blob. Thats not what you want ;-)
enjoy
Edit: included fix by xatavt