I am reading JPA 2.0. I encounter a sentence that
We have used the transient modifier instead of the #Transient annotation so that
if the Employee gets serialized from one VM to another then the translated name
will get reinitialized to correspond to the locale of the new VM.
#Entity
public class Employee {
#Id private int id;
private String name;
private long salary;
transient private String translatedName;
// ...
public String toString() {
if (translatedName == null) {
translatedName = ResourceBundle.getBundle("EmpResources").getString("Employee");
}
return translatedName + ": " + id + " " + name;
}
}
What I understood is that when we use #Entity annotation and container encounter it then it call JPA provider that do the things. Like map id to ID column in database. Although we didn't mention the #Column annotation on the name and salary, but by default it maps to column NAME and SALARY in database. We used transient on translatedName so the JAP leave it as it is, not mapping applied to it. It's just a field in this class. But i am unable to get the understanding of the sentence
if the Employee gets serialized from one VM to another
Someone please explain it to me? Also tell me that what i defined above about the workflow of JAP is correct? Like what happening when container encounter #Entity annotation?
Thanks
When a class implements the java.io.Serializable interface, instances of this class are serializable. That means that the JVM can transform the object into a sequence of bytes. These bytes can be sent over the network, or saved on a disk, and can be read by another VM and transformed back into a Java object.
If a field has the transient Java keyword, it means that this field will be ignored by this serialization mechanism. The field won't be serialized.
A field annotated with #Transient is considered as a non-persistent field by JPA. It won't save it in the database, and it won't load it from the database. But it will be serialized if the object is sent to another JVM.
The Java transient keyword automatically makes a field #Transient. This means that a transient field, won't be serialized, and won't be saved by JPA either.
In the "JEE5 world" you can use detached entities as you would have used transfer objects. (I am not judging whether this is a good idea or not!)
Thus you can call for example a service method (e.g. EJB 3 SLSB method) that returns an instance of Employee remotely with the usual remote-call semantics regarding serialization.
It should be noted, that if an instance of Employee was serialized successfully, then your Java Runtime might be broken, as the class does not implement Serializable.
If you don't want to save the state of your entity arrtibute to DB and also don't want the state to get transferred to another jvm, then use Transient keyword.
If you don't want to save the state of your entity arrtibute to DB, but want the state to be transferred to another jvm, then use #Transient annotation.
Related
I have a Object Defined as
class MyObj {
int a;
String b;
Date d; //I will add the transient
}
During serialization the object was without 'transient' and the serialized string contains the Date. Now I am adding the 'transient' modifier with the Date. Will it be able to deserialize?
I have tested with my machine and it is working but somehow I am not confident on this one. I am using Gson for serialize/deserialize.
No.!
that is exactly the definition of transient keyword in java
Quote
transient is a Java keyword which marks a member variable not to be
serialized when it is persisted to streams of bytes.transient is a
Java keyword which marks a member variable not to be serialized when
it is persisted to streams of bytes.
I'm new to serialization concept, please help in understanding concept.
What exactly serialization means? I have read the definition, but could not understand in details.
How basic types (int, string) are serialized?
If we don't use serialization in our code how data will be transmitted?
Is there any implicit serialization process involved while accessing database from front end Java/C# code? example insert/delete from database.
Serialization just takes an object and translates it into something simpler. Imagine that you had an object in C# like so:
class Employee
{
public int age;
public string fullname;
}
public static void Main()
{
var john = new Employee();
john.age = 21;
john.fullname = "John Smith";
var matt = new Employee();
matt.age = 44;
matt.fullname = "Matt Rogers";
...
This is C# friendly. But if you wanted to save that information in a text file in CSV format, you would end up with something like this:
age,fullname
21,John Smith
44,Matt Rogers
When you write a CSV, you are basically serializing information into a different format - in this case a CSV file. You can serialize your object to XML, JSON, database table(s), memory or something else. Here's an example from Udemy regarding serialization.
If you don't serialize, confusion will be transmitted. Perhaps your object's ToString() will be implictly called before transmission and whatever result gets transmitted. Therefore it is vital to convert your data to something that is receiver friendly.
There's always some serialization happening. When you execute a query that populates a DataTable, for example, serialization occurred.
Concept :
Serialization is the process of converting an object into series of bytes.
Usually the objects we use in application will be complex and all of them can be easily represented in the form of series of bytes which can be stored in the file/database or transfered over network.
You can make a class Serializable just by making it implement Serializable interface.
For a class to be serialized successfully, two conditions must be met:
The class must implement the java.io.Serializable interface.
All of the fields in the class must be serializable. If a field is not serializable, it must be marked transient.
When the program is done serializing, and if it is stored in a file with extension .ser then it can be used for deserializing.
Serialization gives an serialVersionUID to the serialized object which has to match for deserialization
I'm writing an ORM and am unsure of the expected behaviour of the Repository, or more precisely, the frontier between the Repository and the Unit Of Work.
From my understanding, a Repository might look like this:
interface IPersonRepository
{
public function find(Criteria criteria);
public function add(Person person);
public function delete(Person person);
}
According to Fowler (PoEAA, page 322):
A Repository mediates between the domain and data mapping layers, acting like an in-memory domain object collection. [...] Objects can be added to and removed from the Repository, as they can from a simple collection of objects.
This would imply that the following test should work (assuming that we already have a Person persisted, whose last name is Fowler):
collection = repository.find(lastnameEqualsFowlerCriteria);
person = collection[0];
assertEquals(person.lastname, "Fowler");
person.lastname = "Evans";
newCollection = repository.find(lastnameEqualsFowlerCriteria);
assertFalse(newCollection.contains(person));
That means that when mapping to a database, even if no explicit save() method has been called somewhere, the Person model must have been automatically persisted by the Repository, so that the next query returned the correct collection, not containing the original Person.
But, isn't that the role of the Unit Of Work, to decide which model to persist to the database, and when?
In the above implementation, the Repository has to decide to persist the Person previously retrieved when receiving another find() call, so that the result is consistent with the modification. But if no other find() call were issued, the model would not have been persisted implicitly at all.
In the context of a Unit Of Work, it is not really a problem, because we can start a transaction at the beginning, and rollback any insert to the db anyway if needed.
But when used alone, can't this Repository lead to unexpected, unpredictable behaviour?
A Repository mediates between the
domain and data mapping layers, acting
like an in-memory domain object
collection. [...] Objects can be added
to and removed from the Repository, as
they can from a simple collection of
objects.
This does not mean you do not need a save method. You still need to explicitly commit your changes to storage.
See The Unit Of Work Pattern And Persistence Ignorance
public interface IUnitOfWork {
void MarkDirty(object entity);
void MarkNew(object entity);
void MarkDeleted(object entity);
void Commit();
void Rollback();
}
In a way, you can think of the Unit of Work as a place to dump all transaction-handling code. The responsibilities of the Unit of Work are to:
Manage transactions.
Order the database inserts, deletes, and updates.
Prevent duplicate updates. Inside a single usage of a Unit of Work object, different parts of the code may mark the same Invoice object as changed, but the Unit of Work class will only issue a single UPDATE command to the databas
I think what you;re asking about is following: http://martinfowler.com/eaaCatalog/identityMap.html
Repository should keep fetched objects in memory and all subsequent calls for that entity should not be retrieved from persistence storage, hence your example should work fine.
In my Google Web Toolkit project, I got the following error:
com.google.gwt.user.client.rpc.SerializationException: Type ‘your.class.Type’ was not included in the set of types which can be serialized by this SerializationPolicy or its Class object could not be loaded. For security purposes, this type will not be serialized.
What are the possible causes of this error?
GWT keeps track of a set of types which can be serialized and sent to the client. your.class.Type apparently was not on this list. Lists like this are stored in .gwt.rpc files. These lists are generated, so editing these lists is probably useless. How these lists are generated is a bit unclear, but you can try the following things:
Make sure your.class.Type implements java.io.Serializable
Make sure your.class.Type has a public no-args constructor
Make sure the members of your.class.Type do the same
Check if your program does not contain collections of a non-serializable type, e.g. ArrayList<Object>. If such a collection contains your.class.Type and is serialized, this error will occur.
Make your.class.Type implement IsSerializable. This marker interface was specifically meant for classes that should be sent to the client. This didn't work for me, but my class also implemented Serializable, so maybe both interfaces don't work well together.
Another option is to create a dummy class with your.class.Type as a member, and add a method to your RPC interface that gets and returns the dummy. This forces the GWT compiler to add the dummy class and its members to the serialization whitelist.
I'll also add that if you want to use a nested class, use a static member class.
I.e.,
public class Pojo {
public static class Insider {
}
}
Nonstatic member classes get the SerializationException in GWT 2.4
I had the same issue in a RemoteService like this
public List<X> getX(...);
where X is an interface. The only implementation did conform to the rules, i.e. implements Serializable or IsSerializable, has a default constructor, and all its (non-transient and non-final) fields follow those rules as well.
But I kept getting that SerializationException until I changed the result type from List to X[], so
public X[] getX(...);
worked. Interestingly, the only argument being a List, Y being an interface, was no problem at all...
I have run into this problem, and if you per chance are using JPA or Hibernate, this can be a result of trying to return the query object and not creating a new object and copying your relavant fields into that new object. Check the following out, which I saw in a google group.
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public static List<Article> getForUser(User user)
{
List<Article> articles = null;
PersistenceManager pm = PMF.get().getPersistenceManager();
try
{
Query query = pm.newQuery(Article.class);
query.setFilter("email == emailParam");
query.setOrdering("timeStamp desc");
query.declareParameters("String emailParam");
List<Article> results = (List<Article>) query.execute(user.getEmail
());
articles = new ArrayList<Article>();
for (Article a : results)
{
a.getEmail();
articles.add(a);
}
}
finally
{
pm.close();
}
return articles;
}
this helped me out a lot, hopefully it points others in the right direction.
Looks like this question is very similar to what IsSerializable or not in GWT?, see more links to related documentation there.
When your class has JDO annotations, then this fixed it for me (in addition to the points in bspoel's answer) : https://stackoverflow.com/a/4826778/1099376
I'd like to use for table storage an entity like this:
public class MyEntity
{
public String Text { get; private set; }
public Int32 SomeValue { get; private set; }
public MyEntity(String text, Int32 someValue)
{
Text = text;
SomeValue = someValue;
}
}
But it's not possible, because the ATS needs
Parameterless constructor
All properties public and
read/write.
Inherit from TableServiceEntity;
The first two, are two things I don't want to do. Why should I want that anybody could change some data that should be readonly? or create objects of this kind in a inconsistent way (what are .ctor's for then?), or even worst, alter the PartitionKey or the RowKey. Why are we still constrained by these deserialization requirements?
I don't like develop software in that way, how can I use table storage library in a way that I can serialize and deserialize myself the objects? I think that as long the objects inherits from TableServiceEntity it shouldn't be a problem.
So far I got to save an object, but I don't know how retrieve it:
Message m = new Message("message XXXXXXXXXXXXX");
CloudTableClient tableClient = account.CreateCloudTableClient();
tableClient.CreateTableIfNotExist("Messages");
TableServiceContext tcontext = new TableServiceContext(account.TableEndpoint.AbsoluteUri, account.Credentials);
var list = tableClient.ListTables().ToArray();
tcontext.AddObject("Messages", m);
tcontext.SaveChanges();
Is there any way to avoid those deserialization requirements or get the raw object?
Cheers.
If you want to use the Storage Client Library, then yes, there are restrictions on what you can and can't do with your objects that you want to store. Point 1 is correct. I'd expand point 2 to say "All properties that you want to store must be public and read/write" (for integer properties you can get away with having read only properties and it won't try to save them) but you don't actually have to inherit from TableServiceEntity.
TableServiceEntity is just a very light class that has the properties PartitionKey, RowKey, Timestamp and is decorated with the DataServiceKey attribute (take a look with Reflector). All of these things you can do to a class that you create yourself and doesn't inherit from TableServiceEntity (note that the casing of these properties is important).
If this still doesn't give you enough control over how you build your classes, you can always ignore the Storage Client Library and just use the REST API directly. This will give you the ability to searialize and deserialize the XML any which way you like. You will lose the all of the nice things that come with using the library, like ability to create queries in LINQ.
The constraints around that ADO.NET wrapper for the Table Storage are indeed somewhat painful. You can also adopt a Fat Entity approach as implemented in Lokad.Cloud. This will give you much more flexibility concerning the serialization of your entities.
Just don't use inheritance.
If you want to use your own POCO's, create your class as you want it and create a separate tableEntity wrapper/container class that holds the pK and rK and carries your class as a serialized byte array.
You can use composition to achieve what you want.
Create your Table Entities as you need to for storage and create your POCOs as wrappers on those providing the API you want the rest of your application code to see.
You can even mix in some interfaces for better code.
How about generating the POCO wrappers at runtime using System.Reflection.Emit http://blog.kloud.com.au/2012/09/30/a-better-dynamic-tableserviceentity/