I've seen a lot of information on the different inheritance strategies but can't seem to find anything on how you setup a REST controller when using a single table strategy. In my scenario, I have 2 Barcode types: product and case.
I created a Barcode superclass that ProductBarcode and CaseBarcode inherit from. However, I have the following questions regarding how to implement this:
Do I need separate repositories for ProductBarcode and CaseBarcode?
Can I use a single endpoint to create/update/delete both kinds of Barcodes?
I have another entity (Product) that relates to Barcode and needs to be able to get the details for a barcode based on an ID. Product won't know what type of Barcode the ID belongs to. Is this something that will cause an issue?
To summarize what I'm trying to do:
Create a barcode entry of either ProductBarcode or CaseBarcode by sending a JSON POST request to a single endpoint such as localhost:8080/barcodes.
Retrieve or update a barcode of either type from a single endpoint.
Be able to perform CRUD operations without needing to know which type of Barcode is being operated on.
Is this something that is doable using Spring Data JPA and Hibernate? Thanks for any advice.
Related
How to write JPA query in Spring Data that uses at least one of three parameters?
I have these three parameters:
Id (PK)
Name
Surname
Client must supply at least one of these three parameters and I want to find user by these not-empty parameters.
Is it possible to create such custom query to my repository or do I have to create custom queries for all possible combination of WHERE conditions?
You can have your repository extend org.springframework.data.querydsl.QueryDslPredicateExecutor and use the inherited findAll(Predicate predicate) method to query using any combination of parameters.
You would not then have to write any query methods:
http://docs.spring.io/spring-data/jpa/docs/1.10.5.RELEASE/reference/html/#core.extensions.querydsl
You can also have the Predicate automatically bound in a Spring MVC Controller as detailed here:
https://spring.io/blog/2015/09/04/what-s-new-in-spring-data-release-gosling#querydsl-web-support
and here:
https://docs.spring.io/spring-data/jpa/docs/current/reference/html/#core.web.type-safe
So your controller can then automatically handle a search with 1,2 or all 3 parameters passed as request parameters without your having to write any code at all.
This is where you need the ability to create dynamic queries at runtime.
In your application code, you should have logic to build the predicate based on whether each of the above properties from the input DTO is empty or not.
One way to do it is to use QueryDSL.
To use QueryDSL, you should include the relevant dependency in your pom/gradle file and then your repository should extend the QueryDslPredicateExecutor interface. This will give you two additional generic finder methods.
T findAll(Predicate) or
Page<T> findAll(Predicate, Pageable)
One thing to keep in mind is that the above two methods are appropriate where this is no need to do a join
Your requirement here seems to be a single table query, so either one of the finder methods should suffice.
If you do need to do a join with other tables and need fine grained control over how the JOIN happens (INNER JOIN vs LEFT OUTER JOIN vs CROSS JOIN) etc, then you should consider creating a Custom repository that your repository can extend.
And then provide your own customImpl that you can now access from the repository.
thanks a lot for the reply ... as i read Spring is not easy flexible as other framework... for i.e i tried some node js api framework and it is easier and more flexible .. what do you think about this ?
It`s seems that the best place to implement validation is as close as possible to the database, so when I use entity framework the nearest objects are the entities, in my case the POCO entities.
The reason for that is that if I want to reuse this POCO entities, the validation is implemented in the POCO objects and then there are less posibilities to insert worng data in the database.
this also avoid that someone try to insert incorrect data in the databse creating another application, or because he does not implement the validation. So it is more secure.
One way to do that is using partial classes that extends the POCO entities and that implements the IValidatableObject interface and return a list of validationresult.
But other way is the following. I have a common assembly that has the following:
One interface that declare the methods that need to implement the repositories.
The POCO entities that will be used by the repositories.
One class with utilities, such as copy entities and methods to validate the data of the entities.
Then I can create many repositories that use different versions of EF or another technology and all of them use the common assembly. This repositories implements the validation using the methods in the common library.
In this case I implement the validation only once. The only problem is that the repositories need to call the methods to validate the data.
But there are advantages in this way, from my point of view. For example, I can validate the data of the entities depending on the type of the operation. For example, if I am adding a new record and the primary key as an autonumeric, if the ID is not 0, then I can throw an exception, or if I try to delete a register when the ID is 0, then I don't need to send the command to the database.
So this second solution solves the problem to implement the validation as close as possible to the database, bacause is used in the repository, that is the element that access to the database, but has the problem that if some developer creates a new repository and not use the validation methods, I can have incorrect data in the database.
So my question is if the best option is to use validation with partial classes or to use a common library and the validation is implemented in the repositories, that is really what the users will use.
Thanks.
OK - phew, big question. My opinion is that the APPLICATION DOMAIN of the application is the boss of everything. The database is just an add-on service. So, the application domain should ultimately validate ALL objects that are being SENT somewhere. No need to validate object coming out of the DB because they were validated going in.
As an example, what if you were creating some object that needed to be sent off to a web service and it needed validation. Lets say it was never going near the database or the repositories. Once the DOMAIN business objects have been validated, they can then be sent for persistence or anywhere else.
Another thing to consider is what you mean by validation. Does it mean the datatypes are correct? Does it mean the business object is valid? Does it mean the business object is valid in the given context? It could mean all or only some of these things.
As an example, what if your system allows users to partially update records (common with very long input forms). The business object may only become valid when ALL the required data is captured, but the database allows persistence of "partial" data. In other words, you can save the business object to the database although it is not valid for further processing yet. etc etc....
i am building my the model using ODataModelBuilder, i am trying to create navigation property however in the metadata i dont see any foreginkey indication, in my solution i am not using EF, so there is no foreignKey attribute, is it possible to add it by code?
As you clarified in your comment, the reason you want to add foreign key information is because your client application is not including related entities when you query the main entity. I don't think foreign keys are the problem here.
As an example, I'll use two entity types: Customer and Order. Every Customer has some number of associated Orders, so I have a navigation property on Customer called Orders that points to a collection of Orders. If I issue a GET request to /MyService.svc/Customers(1), the server will respond with all of the Customer's information as well as URLs that point to the related Order entities*. I won't, by default, get the data of each related Order within the same payload.
If you want a request to Customers(1) to include all of the data of its associated Orders, you would add the $expand query option to the request URI: /MyService.svc/Customers(1)?$expand=Orders. Using the WCF Data Services client (DataServiceContext), you can do this with .Expand():
DataServiceQuery<Customer> query = context.Customers.Expand("Orders");
However, WebAPI OData doesn't currently support $expand (the latest nightly builds do though, so this will change soon).
The other approach would be to make a separate request to fill in the missing Order data. You can use the LoadProperty() method to do this:
context.LoadProperty(customer, "Orders");
The LoadProperty approach should work with WebAPI as it stands today.
I know this doesn't answer your original question, but I hope addresses your intent.
*In JSON, which is the default format for WebAPI OData services, no links will show up on the wire, but they are still there "in spirit". The client is expected to be able to compute them on its own, which the WCF Data Services Client does.
The small web application I am working on is becoming bigger and bigger. I've noticed that when posting forms or just calling other functions I've passed parameters that consist of IDs or a whole instance of a Model class.
In a performance stand point, is it better for me to pass the whole Model object (filled with values) or should I pass the ID, then retrieve from the database?
Thanks!
For Performance benefits, you can do lot of things, common things are
1) Fetch as many as records which are needed, e.g. customized paging, in LINQ use (skip and take methods)
2) Use Data caching in controllers and Cache dependencies for Lists which are bound with View
3) Use Compiled query to fetch records. (see here)
Apply all these and see the mark-able page load speed.
EDIt: For IDs recommendations, In this question, Both will be same performance impact if you pass only ID and fetch rest of the model from database OR pass filled model.
Do not solve problems which do not exist yet. Use a tool to measure the performance problem and then try to solve.
It is always best to consider these from the use case.
For example, if I want to get an item by ID, then I pass the ID, not the whole object with the ID filled out.
I use WCF services to host my BLL and interface to my DAL, so passing data around is a costly exercise, so I do it sparingly.
If I need to update an object, I pass the object, if I just want to perform an action on an object, such as delete or get, I use the ID.
Si
I have a web application built on an MVC design.
I have a database which contains a large number of objects (forum threads) which I can't load into memory at once. I now want to display (part of) this collection with different filters in effect (kinda like what stackoverflow does with questions sorted by date, votes, tags etc).
Where do I implement the filtering logic? It seems to me that this must go into the model part of the application, as only models interact with the database (in my implementation). If I make the filtering a part of the view, then the view must access the database directly to get the list of filtered objects, right? I'd like to avoid this, because it exposes the database layout to the view. But at the same time, displaying different views of the same data should be implemented in the view part of the application, as they are just that -- different views of the same data.
So how do I resolve this? Do I create an additional model, say, FilteredThreadsList, and have it remember the filter to use, and then use a FilteredView to display the list of threads that FilteredThreadsList spits out?
Or do I have to build a ThreadQueryier that allows views to query the database for certain thread objects, so I can have the filtering logic in a view without exposing the database backend?
You should never query data from the view. I don't know what framework you are using in particular but as for Ruby on Rails (should be the same for other frameworks) we always pull the necessary data from the controller and store all that information into a variable. The variable will be accessed by the view which can help you avoid querying your database directly from the view.If the code to query the database gets too lengthy in the controller, insert that code into the model instead so it's more maintainable for your project in the future. Additionally, you can call this model method from multiple places in your application if needed. Good luck!
From an architectural point of view, the model should be having the code for filtering. This is so, because in many applications the code for filtering is not trivial and has a good amount of domain logic in it. (Think of filtering top gainers from a list of stocks). From your example as well, it looks the same since you might want to filter by vote or by date or by tags and then by answered or unanswered etc.
In some very simple applications that deal with search/list of entities and allows Create/Read/Update/Delete of an entity, the pagination, sorting and filtering logic is usually very generic and can be implemented in a controller base class that is inherited by all entity-specific controller classes.
The bottom line is this: if your filtering logic is generic put it in the controller else put it in the model.
Model, that's only bunch of entities.
View provides a visual representation of the data from model - use as much of views as you want. If your application is web based, you can fetch data into browser just once (AJAX) using and re-use them for different UI components rendered in the browser.
As for what entities and what view to use for their representation, I think it's work of Controller. If you need some support for it on "model layer", add it but avoid tight coupling.