When someone talks about hydrating an object, what does that mean?
I see a Java project called Hydrate on the web that transforms data between different representations (RDMS to OOPS to XML). Is this the general meaning of object hydration; to transform data between representations? Could it mean reconstructing an object hierarchy from a stored representation?
Hydration refers to the process of filling an object with data. An object which has not yet been hydrated has been instantiated and represents an entity that does have data, but the data has not yet been loaded into the object. This is something that is done for performance reasons.
Additionally, the term hydration is used when discussing plans for loading data from databases or other data sources. Here are some examples:
You could say that an object is partially hydrated when you have only loaded some of the fields into it, but not all of them. This can be done because those other fields are not necessary for your current operations. So there's no reason to waste bandwidth and CPU cycles loading, transferring, and setting this data when it's not going to be used.
Additionally, there are some ORM's, such as Doctrine, which do not hydrate objects when they are instantiated, but only when the data is accessed in that object. This is one method that helps to not load data which is not going to be used.
With respect to the more generic term hydrate
Hydrating an object is taking an object that exists in memory, that doesn't yet contain any domain data ("real" data), and then populating it with domain data (such as from a database, from the network, or from a file system).
From Erick Robertson's comments on this answer:
deserialization == instantiation + hydration
If you don't need to worry about blistering performance, and you aren't debugging performance optimizations that are in the internals of a data access API, then you probably don't need to deal with hydration explicitly. You would typically use deserialization instead so you can write less code. Some data access APIs don't give you this option, and in those cases you'd also have to explicitly call the hydration step yourself.
For a bit more detail on the concept of Hydration, see Erick Robertson's answer on this same question.
With respect to the Java project called hydrate
You asked about this framework specifically, so I looked into it.
As best as I can tell, I don't think this project used the word "hydrate" in a very generic sense. I see its use in the title as an approximate synonym for "serialization". As explained above, this usage isn't entirely accurate:
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serialization
translating data structures or object state into a format that can be stored [...] and reconstructed later in the same or another computer environment.
I can't find the reason behind their name directly on the Hydrate FAQ, but I got clues to their intention. I think they picked the name "Hydrate" because the purpose of the library is similar to the popular sound-alike Hibernate framework, but it was designed with the exact opposite workflow in mind.
Most ORMs, Hibernate included, take an in-memory object-model oriented approach, with the database taking second consideration. The Hydrate library instead takes a database-schema oriented approach, preserving your relational data structures and letting your program work on top of them more cleanly.
Metaphorically speaking, still with respect to this library's name: Hydrate is like "making something ready to use" (like re-hydrating Dried Foods). It is a metaphorical opposite of Hibernate, which is more like "putting something away for the winter" (like Animal Hibernation).
The decision to name the library Hydrate, as far as I can tell, was not concerned with the generic computer programming term "hydrate".
When using the generic computer programming term "hydrate", performance optimizations are usually the motivation (or debugging existing optimizations). Even if the library supports granular control over when and how objects are populated with data, the timing and performance don't seem to be the primary motivation for the name or the library's functionality. The library seems more concerned with enabling end-to-end mapping and schema-preservation.
While it is somewhat redundant vernacular as Merlyn mentioned, in my experience it refers only to filling/populating an object, not instantiating/creating it, so it is a useful word when you need to be precise.
This is a pretty old question, but it seems that there is still confusion over the meaning of the following terms. Hopefully, this will disambiguate.
Hydrate
When you see descriptions that say things like, "an object that is waiting for data, is waiting to be hydrated", that's confusing and misleading. Objects don't wait for things, and hydration is just the act of filling an object with data.
Using JavaScript as the example:
const obj = {}; // empty object
const data = { foo: true, bar: true, baz: true };
// Hydrate "obj" with "data"
Object.assign(obj, data);
console.log(obj.foo); // true
console.log(obj.bar); // true
console.log(obj.baz); // true
Anything that adds values to obj is "hydrating" it. I'm just using Object.assign() in this example.
Since the terms "serialize" and "deserialize" were also mentioned in other answers, here are examples to help disambiguate the meaning of those concepts from hydration:
Serialize
console.log(JSON.stringify({ foo: true, bar: true, baz: true }));
Deserialize
console.log(JSON.parse('{"foo":true,"bar":true,"baz":true}'));
In PHP, you can create a new class from its name, w/o invoke constructor, like this:
require "A.php";
$className = "A";
$class = new \ReflectionClass($className);
$instance = $class->newInstanceWithoutConstructor();
Then, you can hydrate invoking setters (or public attributes)
Is it possible to mark fields as read only in a .proto file such that when the code is generated, these fields do not have setters?
Ultimately, I think the answer here will be "no". There's a good basic guidance rule that applies to DTOs:
DTOs should generally be as simple as possible to convey the data for serialization in a manner well-suited to the specific serializer.
if that basic model is sufficient for you to work with above that layer, then fine
but if not: do not fight the serializer; instead, create a separate domain model above the DTO layer, and simply map between the two models before serialization or after deserialization
Or put another way: the fact that the generator doesn't want to expose read-only members is irrelevant, because if you need something exotic, you shouldn't be using the generated type outside of the code that directly touches serialization. So: in your domain type that mirrors the DTO: make it read-only there.
As for why read-only fields aren't usually a thing in serialization tools: you presumably want to be able to give it a value. Serialization tools usually want to be able to write everything they can read, and read everything they can write.
Minor note for completeness since you mention C#: if you are using a code-first approach with protobuf-net, it'll work fine with {get;}-only auto-props, and with {get;}-only manual props if all public members trivially map to an obvious constructor.
My app attempts to pass a fairly complex object that uses RxAndroidBle classes from one Android activity to another by adding it to an Intent as a Serializable extra. But I'm getting crashes, apparently due to problems with serialization of these classes.
Is there any fix for this?
Unfortunately it is not possible to serialize classes of RxAndroidBle because most of them contain references to objects that are not serializable.
If you cannot pass a reference to an object that you want to use in a different part of the code (for instance in a different process) then you would need to create a new instance of RxBleClient in that process and use it.
We are using Probuf on a .netcf target. Everything works well. I started out using the static [ProtoContract], [ProtoMember, 1].. etc. My colleage was concerned about adding potential overhead to the class object so I switched to a runtime model with .add(# , " ") which seemed more "disconnected" from the class in question. I actually prefer the static tags in the class since names are inherently updated if variable names are refactored later. Since I do not know how or what protobuf does under the hood, is there any advantage or disadvantage to using the static tags vs. the runtime model in terms of overhead, speed, etc.
Thanks!
I haven't profiled this aspect extensively - mainly because any overhead from reflection on the attributes is done once and once only. There might be a slight difference in cold-start performance, but: if the ultimate in startup performance is your aim you should ideally try to use the precompiler available in the google-code download. This only works with the attribute model but has the advantage that when using a precompiled model no reflection whatsoever occurs at runtime. It will also generate pure IL, where-as CF is usually very restricted so IIRC the runtime usage is forced to use some reflection even for things like member access. Finally, it means you can use the "CoreOnly" rather than "Full" build, which is smaller and less complex.
http://marcgravell.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/introducing-protobuf-net-precompiler.html
We have a class that is more like a template (with lot of properties and overridden methods). I need to make many objects of that class type. Can I use clone() to create objects with specific settings if I have one object created? I know I need to override the Clone method. Is the performance going to take a hit by using Clone()?
Cloning an object as a way of creating new objects is not necessarily the cleanest method of creating objects. It is better to use constructors or factory methods (which call constructors).
You may be interested in using a factory or builder pattern. Or if you are worried about the memory overhead of a large number of similar objects, take a look at the flyweight pattern.
Clone in itself is not bad practice, its generally shallow. BUt i think you want to be using a pattern. More than likely Prototype Pattern is your solution.
The clone you are doing is really a cookie cutting of your prototype.
The link i sent is from DO factory and has code samples for you.