Is it possible to change the entity-table mapping at runtime with Eclipselink?
I have a Entity-View mapping defined with annotations. Now I have the business requirement: "If these Views are empty, try the underlying table". Thus I have to switch from the view to the underlying table.
The view is just a SELECT on the table with some restrictions.
When do you need to check if the view is empty?
If it can be done one time at start-up, you could just put this check in a SessionCustomizer and alter the ClassDescriptor's table.
If you need to do this every time you query it, then this is much more odd. You could define a MappedSuperclass and two subclasses, one mapped to the view and one to the table, then decide in your application which to use.
You could also define another view that gives you the result that you wish.
It is possible to get the ClassDescriptor from the Session at runtime and change it, but this is normally a bad idea, as other clients/threads can be using the descriptor/session at the same time.
Or just always map to the table, and filter what is relevant in your query (or an additional join criteria) instead of using the view.
Related
In a JHipster based project, we need to selectively filter out certain columns based on role/user logged in. All users will be able to view/modify most of the columns, but only some privileged users will be able to view/modify certain secure fields/columns.
It looks like the only option to get this done is using EntityListeners. I can use an EntityListener and mask a certain column during PostLoad event. Say for example, I mask the column my_secure_column with XXX and display to the user.
User then changes some other fields/columns (that he has access to) and submits the form. Do I have to again trap the partially filled in entity in PreUpdate event, get the original value for my_secure_column from database and set it before persisting?
All this seems inefficient. Scoured several hours but couldn't find a specific implementation that best suits this use case.
Edit 1: This looks like a first step to achieving this in a slightly better way. Updating Entities with Update Query in Spring Data JPA
I could use specific partial updates like updateAsUserRole, updateAsManagerRole, etc., instead of persisting the whole entity all the time.
#Repository
public interface CompanyRepository extends JpaRepository<Company, Integer> {
#Modifying(clearAutomatically = true)
#Query("UPDATE Company c SET c.address = :address WHERE c.id = :companyId")
int updateAddress(#Param("companyId") int companyId, #Param("address") String address);
}
Column based security is not an easy problem to solve, and especially in combination with JPA.
Ideally you like to avoid even loading the columns, but since you are selecting entities this is not possible by default, so you have to remove the restricted content by overriding the value after load.
As an alternative you can create a view bean (POJO) and then use JPQL Constructor Expression. Personally I would use CriteriaBuilder. construct() instead of concatenating a JPQL query, but same principle.
With regards to updating the data, the UI should of cause not allow the editing of restricted fields. However you still have to validate on the backend, and I would recommend that you check if the column was modify before calling JPA. Typically you have the modifications in a DTO and would need to load the Entity anyway, if a restricted column was modified, you would send an error back. This way you only call JPA after the security has been checked.
We would like to create an OData REST API. Our data model is such that each customer has their own database. All database objects have the same definition across all customer databases, with the exception of a single table.
The customer specific table we will call Contact. When a customer adds a column the system creates a column with a standardised name with a definition translated from options selected by the user in the UI. The user only refers to the column data by a field name they have specified to enable the user to be able to generate friendly queries.
It seems to me that the following approaches could be used to enable OData for the model described:
1) Create an OData open type to cater for the dynamic properties. This has the disadvantage of user requests for a customer not providing an indication of the dynamic properties that can be queried against. Even though they will be known for the user (via token authentication). Also, because dynamic properties are a dictionary, some data pivoting and inefficient query writing would be required. Not sure how to implement the IQueryable handling of query options for the dynamic properties to enable our own custom field querying.
2) Create a POCO class with e.g. 50 properties; CustomField1, CustomField2... Then somehow control which fields are exposed for use in OData calls. We would then include a separate API call to expose the custom field mapping. E.g. custom field friendly name of MobileNumber = CustomField12.
3) At runtime, check to see if column definitions of table changed since last check. If have, generate class specific to customer using CodeDom and register it with OData. Aiming for a unique URL for each customer. E.g. http://domain.name/{customer guid}/odata
I think the ideal for us is option 2. However, the fact the CustomField1 could be an underlying SQL data type of nvarchar, int, decimal, datetime, etc, there are added complications.
Has anyone a working example of how to achieve what has been described, satisfactorily?
Thanks in advance for any help.
Rik
We have run into a similar situation but with our entire dataset being unknown until runtime. Using the ODataConventionModelBuilder and EdmModel classes, you can add properties dynamically to the model at runtime.
I'm not sure whether you will have to manually add all of the properties for this object type even though only some of them are unknown or whether you can add your main object and then add your dynamic ones afterwards, but I guess either would be workable.
If you can get hold of which type of user it is on the server, you could then add only the properties that you are interested in (like option 3 but not having to CodeDom).
There is an example of this kind of untyped OData server in the OData samples here that should get you started: https://github.com/OData/ODataSamples/tree/master/WebApi/v4/ODataUntypedSample
The research we carried out actually posed Option 1 as the most suitable approach for some operations. i.e. Create an SQL view that unpivots the data in a table to a key/value pair of column name/column value for each column in the table. This was suitable for queries returning small datasets. This was far less effort than Option 3 and less confusing for the user than Option 2. The unpivot query converted the field values to nvarchar (string) values and thus meant that filtering in the UI by column value data types was not simple to achieve. (If we decide to implement this ability, I believe this can be achieved by creating a custom attribute that derives from EnablQueryAttribute, marking the controller action with it and manipulate the IQueryable before execution).
However, we wanted to expose a /Contacts/Export endpoint that when called would output the columns from a table with a fixed schema joined on a table with a client specific schema and output to a CSV file. All the while utilising the OData supported filter syntax. One of our customer databases has more than 12 million rows of data and is made up of approximately 30 columns.
To achieve this it looks like our best bet would have been to work with the Microsoft.OData.Core.UriParser.UriQueryExpressionParser class, unfortunately Microsoft in their wisdom have declared this as internal, as well as many of it's dependants.
Walking an abstract syntax tree built from OData supported query options and applying our own visitor to each node to build some dynamic Linq query/SQL seems like a possible solution.
For the time-being we will simply implement a cut-down set of supported $filter criteria without the support for grouping parenthesis.
I have been tasked with fixing a number of bugs on existing application that makes use of JPA (EclipseLink).
In this application it common for there to be multiple entities that indirectly share the same table via SQL views. As an example, I might have a entity called TEmployeeInfo and another entity called VActiveEmployeeInfo. While the first maps to a table directly, the second maps to a view of the same table as the first.
This seems like it would cause issues with caching as any updates using the first entity (table) would not be immediately available in the second (view).
Are my suspicions correct?
If so, what are some possible steps to correct this short of refactoring a large portion of the application?
If the same rows are mapped twice, then the cache can become stale if the objects are updated. You can have both classes use the real table, or perhaps use inheritance.
Otherwise, you can disable the shared cache of this class.
http://wiki.eclipse.org/EclipseLink/FAQ/How_to_disable_the_shared_cache%3F
I have some views that I want to use EF 4.1 to query. These are specific optimized views that will not have keys to speak of; there will be no deletions, updates, just good ol'e select.
But EF wants a key set on the model. Is there a way to tell EF to move on, there's nothing to worry about?
More Details
The main purpose of this is to query against a set of views that have been optimized by size, query parameters and joins. The underlying tables have their PKs, FKs and so on. It's indexed, statiscized (that a word?) and optimized.
I'd like to have a class like (this is a much smaller and simpler version of what I have...):
public MyObject //this is a view
{
Name{get;set}
Age{get;set;}
TotalPimples{get;set;}
}
and a repository, built off of EF 4.1 CF where I can just
public List<MyObject> GetPimply(int numberOfPimples)
{
return db.MyObjects.Where(d=> d.TotalPimples > numberOfPimples).ToList();
}
I could expose a key, but whats the real purpose of dislaying a 2 or 3 column natural key? That will never be used?
Current Solution
Seeming as their will be no EF CF solution, I have added a complex key to the model and I am exposing it in the model. While this goes "with the grain" on what one expects a "well designed" db model to look like, in this case, IMHO, it added nothing but more logic to the model builder, more bytes over the wire, and extra properties on a class. These will never be used.
There is no way. EF demands unique identification of the record - entity key. That doesn't mean that you must expose any additional column. You can mark all your current properties (or any subset) as a key - that is exactly how EDMX does it when you add database view to the model - it goes through columns and marks all non-nullable and non-computed columns as primary key.
You must be aware of one problem - EF internally uses identity map and entity key is unique identification in this map (each entity key can be associated only with single entity instance). It means that if you are not able to choose unique identification of the record and you load multiple records with the same identification (your defined key) they will all be represented by a single entity instance. Not sure if this can cause you any issues if you don't plan to modify these records.
EF is looking for a unique way to identify records. I am not sure if you can force it to go counter to its nature of desiring something unique about objects.
But, this is an answer to the "show me how to solve my problem the way I want to solve it" question and not actually tackling your core business requirement.
If this is a "I don't want to show the user the key", then don't bind it when you bind the data to your form (web or windows). If this is a "I need to share these items, but don't want to give them the keys" issue, then map or surrogate the objects into an external domain model. Adds a bit of weight to the solution, but allows you to still do the heavy lifting with a drag and drop surface (EF).
The question is what is the business requirement that is pushing you to create a bunch of objects without a unique identifier (key).
One way to do this would be not to use views at all.
Just add the tables to your EF model and let EF create the SQL that you are currently writing by hand.
I would like to know when entities in a certain database table are either created or updated. The application is essentially a CMS, and I need to know when changes are made to the content so that I can reindex them for searches.
I know that the autogenerated LINQ to EF class has overridable methods for when certain fields change, but I need to know when the whole object is created/updated, not just a single field. I tried putting it in OnCreated, only to find that meant OnObjectInitialized and not OnObjectInsertedIntoDBTable xD
I did some searching and came across this link. The "Entity State" section looks like its what I want, but I'm not sure how to use this information. Where do I override those methods?
Or perhaps there is a another/better way?
(I also need to know this for another part of the system, which will send notifications when certain content is changed. I would prefer this code to execute automatically when the insert/update occurs instead of placing it in a controller and hoping hoping I always call that method.)
You need to get ObjectStateEntry(s) from the ObjectStateManager property of the ObjectContect.
var objectStateEntries = this.ObjectStateManager.GetObjectStateEntries();
This entries contain every object state you've pulled down per context and what kind of actions where performed on them.
If you are using EF4 you can override the SaveChanges method to include this functionality. I've used this technique to audit every change that occurs in the database instead of triggers.