In the Spring/Hibernate/Java/Tomcat app I'm writing I have a OneToMany relationship between an Organization and its Contacts.
Organization 1:M Contact (has foreign key org_id)
In Organization I have this field:
#OneToMany(mappedBy="organization")
private List<Contact> contacts;
In Contact I have this field:
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name="org_id")
private Organization organization;
All is working OK so far. Now I'm adding the concept of an Offer. The Offer can be made by an Organization, and you speak with the designated Contact for that particular Offer.
Offer has foreign keys for its organization (org_id) and designated contact (contact_id).
So far, the Offer would look like:
#OneToOne
#JoinColumn(...)
private Organization offering_org;
#OneToOne
#JoinColumn(...)
private Contact offering_contact;
Here comes the point of my question. I've already annotated the Contact class for use with Organization. If I try to persist the Offer object in the usual Hibernate way, I'll need to store copies of an Organization object and a Contact object into the Offer object. This seems to conflict with my existing Organization : Contact use of the two Java classes. For example, if I've a 1:1 with Offer, if I put this into the Contact class do I get an optional use of either or a mandatory simultaneous use of both?
Since the Offer is yet another relationship, do I need to write a data transfer object version of Contact for use in the Offer relationship?
Thanks,
Jerome.
Perhaps I do not fully understand the problem but I'd just do something like this:
// contact & organization being already persisted entity objects
Offer offer = new Offer();
offer.setOffering_org(organization);
offer.setOffering_contact(contact);
// Persisting the new Offer object to the database,
// implicitly making the relations.
service.saveObject(offer);
I see no reason to create copy(s) of the organization object?
It just happens to be that the collection of "contacts" in the Organization object can also be a Contact within one or more Offer objects.
I'm thinking that my original question is kind of stupid. What I did try is to put this in Offer.java:
#Column(name="org_id")
private Long orgId = null;
#Column(name="contact_id")
private Long contactId = null;
I fill orgId manually because an offer is always tied to the user's Organization. It is a hidden field in the web page.
I put a SELECT filled with appropriate Contact objects (contact.id, contact.name) in the web page.
When the web page is submitted the Offer's orgId and contactId fields are filled in the #ModelAttribute parameter. This takes me where I want to go.
To address the comments of Mr. mspringer, your example could work (you illustrated a "create new" situation) if I were willing to use an Organization or Contact list in my Offer object. It is also somewhat the topic of my original question. But since I see that I don't really want to play with the expanded objects within Offer, nor do I wish to, I can avoid the topic of my original question.
Thanks to all who looked at my exercise in confusion.
Related
I'm making a system (using Spring + JPA with MySQL) that shows the best applicants for a certain job offer. The company and the applicants have their respective user account, and with that, they can fill in their personal/company information and their job profile/job offer conditions. With that, the system should match the job conditions (like 3+ years of experience in C) with the applicant's job profile.
My problem is that the User Account is created first, and should be independent, but these two different entities (Applicant and Company), with different attributes, are using it. So if I do something like create an applicant and company in the User Account, one of them will be always null.
How can I solve this? I guess the problem would be something like: how to implement a user account that can hold data from different entities that have different attributes (therefore, can't be grouped)? (In fact, I need one more entity, but I tried to simplify it to illustrate the problem more clearly).
I think, you should make marker interface, like public interface UserAccountable or smth. Implement this interface in your Applicant and Company classes. Then you can make a field in UserAccount class, like private UserAccountable someUser; and throught setters and getters you can assign and get this variable to Applicant or Company.
Hope this helps!
I found what I needed here: https://thoughts-on-java.org/complete-guide-inheritance-strategies-jpa-hibernate/
The problem was the mapping, not the class design per se. I could create interfaces and abstract classes to solve it in the Java world, but in the SQL world that's not possible, so the mapping is the key. In this case, I was looking for the Joined table mapping, but I realized I needed it just to not have null fields in my UserAccount, because I don't need a polymorphic query (e.g. give me the names of every 'user type' (Person, Company)), and it would be too costly performance wise to implement it that way, so I'll trade off space for performance, and I'll just reference all three user types in the User Account, leaving two of those three fields null forever.
PS: Single table mapping won't help because I do need to use not null conditions.
I am learning Spring with Mongo DB and I'm feeling difficulty in learning the entity-relationship model.
Can anyone teach me how can I implement the following design?
Person collection
A person class
id
name
List of the sports object
Sport collection
A Sport class
id (Auto-generated)
sport name
while I am saving the person class which contains sports class, Sports entity should be saved in Sports collection if it is not already present and Person entity should be stored in Person collection with Sports objects Reference.
While I am retrieving Person class, associated sports class should be fetched from the corresponding collection.
I have tried with #DBRef and it is not worked for me.
It will be very helpful if anyone teaches me this scenario or giving the reference to learning this concept.
Very thanks in advance.
while I am saving the person class which contains sports class, Sports entity should be saved in Sports collection if it is not already present and Person entity should be stored in Person collection with Sports objects Reference.
In Spring-data-mongo cascade save not supported. Therefore referencing object will not be saved to the database automatically. To achieve the same you have two option.
1) First, save sports collection (if that record not found in the collection) then save the reference of sports to person collection.
2) Make you custom cascade save implementation. For reference see this.
Detail
I am developing web application in asp.net core with Identity. now in my application I have two kind of user. Customer and Partner both have different profile information and login scenario.customer can login from simple signup from web page but partner can signup from different view with different mandatory fields.
Problem
How can I design Schema.
what are the good practices in this case.
What are the drawback.
Code
This is what I have done so far
public class ApplicationUser : IdentityUser
{
public CustomerProfile CustomerProfile { get; set; }
}
Use inheritance:
public class ApplicationUser : IdentityUser {}
public class Customer : ApplicationUser
{
// Customer-specific properties
}
public class Partner : ApplicationUser
{
// Partner-specific properties
}
By default, this will be implemented via STI (single-table inheritance). That means you'll have just your standard AspNetUsers table containing columns for the properties on ApplicationUser and all derived types. A discriminator column will be added to indicate which type was actually saved, which will then be used to instantiate the right type when queried.
For the most part, this works just fine. The one downside is that properties on derived classes must be nullable. The reason is simple: it would be impossible to provide values for Customer columns while saving a Partner and vice versa. However, the properties only need be nullable at the database-level. You can still require that they be set in forms and such via a view model.
The alternative is to use TPT (table-per-type). With this approach, you'll get AspNetUsers, but also Customers and Partners tables as well. However, the tables for the derived types will have columns corresponding only to the properties specific to that type and a foreign key back to AspNetUsers. All common properties are stored there. With this, you can now enforce columns have values at the database-level, but querying users will require a join. To use TPT, you simply add the Table attribute to your class, i.e. [Table("Customers")] and [Table("Partners")], respectively.
The one important thing to keep in mind with using inheritance, though, is that you need to work with the type you actually want to be persisted. If you save an ApplicationUser instance, it will be an ApplicationUser, not a Customer or Partner. In this regard, you need to be careful with using the correct types with things like UserManager which generically reference the user type. Even if you create an instance of Customer, if you save it via an instance of UserManager<ApplicationUser>, it will upcast to ApplicationUser and that is what will be persisted. To create a new Customer, you'll need an instance of UserManager<Customer>. Likewise, for partners.
However, this also works to your benefit, as if you attempt to look up a user from an instance of UserManager<Customer> for example, you will only find them if they are in fact a Customer. In this way, it makes it trivially simple to have separate portals where only one or the other can log in, as you've indicated that you want.
I have the following database which allows users to rent books in a book shop:
The entity class Book needs to have a Category as well as BookDescription when saved.
Those Book class looks like this:
#Entity
#Table(name = "books")
#Inheritance(strategy = InheritanceType.JOINED)
public abstract class Book {
#OneToOne(cascade = CascadeType.ALL, fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#JoinColumn(name = "book_description_id")
private BookDescription bookDescription;
#ManyToOne(cascade = CascadeType.PERSIST, fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
private Category category;
//omitted fields, getters, setters & other relations
}
I was checking out Spring Data JPA. It has a signature of
CrudRepository<T, ID extends Serializable>
which means that I will have
CrudRepository<Book, String>
but how will I save a book?
So, generally, the user will submit a form, I will bind a BookUIObject which will contain all the details needed to save a book, pass it to a BookService witch will extract from it 3 objects: Book ( a specific implementation), Category and BookDescription. The question is will the service hook up the book relations and call the general repository.save(Book) or it will call a method like repository.save(Book, Category, BookDescription)?
Also, should I bind directly the data from the user into entity classes, or do like I said, bind to a general BookUIObject and let the service extract from it the entity classes?
Kind regards,
Typically you will have to call BookReporitory.save(book). Book has cascaring Persist for both of the relations, so if you have set the BookDescription and the Category on the book instance you save, they will also be persisted. If you didn't have cascading persist, you would have to save them using their JPARepository (unless they already existed in the Persistence context).
One thing that is important to understand in this example is that if you create a new category object and set it on a book and save the book a new category is created in the DB. So if the UI posts category=sic-fi, you have to check if the category already exists, if it does then you must used the managed category, and set that on the book rather than creating another "sci-fi" category. This is the reason I would not have cascading persist on the Category relation, because I would rather have a constraint violation because a category didn't exist, instead of an new category sci-if when someone miss spelled it in the UI.
I do not recommending binding forms directly to JPA entities, because you always need to fetch entities from JPA, as you have to use the managed versions, so in my experience it is better to have another set of beans for form binding.
Another thing that jumps out if the lack of nullable=false in #JoinColumn. If a book can't exist without being in a Category it is vital that this is communicated to the database, and if you generate tables from the JPA metadata model, this is how it is done. If I could give only one recommendation when working with databases/JPA it is to be overzealous with NOT NULL. It is a 100 time easier to get a constraint violation when you insert, than to get a NullPointerException later and have to check every possible code-path that could end up calling save and checking if the argument could be null.
In addition I would recommend that you set of some time to understand the concept of the EntityManager and the Persistence Context, most of the mistakes/assumptions developers make come back to the persistence context and how the 4 entity states work.
Hi I have a question that is braking my mind for some days.
I have my SQL server Database and my C# application.
In the DB I have differemt tables, let me show you a simple ex
Tables:
Person
Relationship
City
Business Rules:
The person are from a City, so the person has IdCity
A person has a relationship with other person, and about that relationship you need to save the starting date.
In other projects I already did something like that, but in this proyect this is not working for me.
When I retrieved with LinQ the information about the person, the city is not coming, and an error appears when I try "person.city.description", for ex.
I try using Include("City") in the linq query, but it didn't work. Besides that, I don't know how to manage the circular reference to the person to person relationship.
One important thing, that I think that can be the problem, is that I rename all the tables from the DataModel, for example, the table in database is called Prd_City, so I change the Name and the Entity Set Name for City in c# project. So in the included I have to use the real table name, in other case the query fail, but if I use the real name nothing happens.
using (var context = new MyContext())
{
List<Person> oPeople = (from p in context.Person.Include("Prd_City")
select p).ToList();
return oPeople ;
}
Any help will be welcome.
Thanks!
"It didn't work" is never a good description of your problem. But from the rest of your question I can infer that Person has a navigation property named "Prd_City", while you expected it to be "City". The thing is: you renamed the entities, but not the navigation properties in the entities.
My advice (for what it's worth): it seems that your work database-first. If you can, change to code-first and manually map the POCO classes to their table names, and properties to their database columns. It may be a considerable amount of work (depending on the size of your data model), but after that you will never run the risk of EF "un-renaming" your entities. Besides, the DbContext API is easier to use than ObjectContext. Currently, it's the preferred EF API.