Search Results

Search found 2015 results on 81 pages for 'cf orm'.

Page 23/81 | < Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  | Next Page >

  • How to implement table-per-concrete-type strategy using entity framework

    - by SDReyes
    Hello Guys! I'm mapping a set of tables that share a common set of fields: So as you can see I'm using a table-per-concrete-type strategy to map the inheritance. But... I have not could to relate them to an abstract type containing these common properties. It's possible to do it using EF? BONUS: The only non documented Entity Data Model Mapping Scenario is Table-per-concrete-type inheritance http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc716779.aspx : P

    Read the article

  • Does Hibernate support one-to-one associations as pkeys?

    - by Andrzej Doyle
    Hi all, Can anyone tell me whether Hibernate supports associations as the pkey of an entity? I thought that this would be supported but I am having a lot of trouble getting any kind of mapping that represents this to work. In particular, with the straight mapping below: @Entity public class EntityBar { @Id @OneToOne(optional = false, mappedBy = "bar") EntityFoo foo // other stuff } I get an org.hibernate.MappingException: "Could not determine type for: EntityFoo, at table: ENTITY_BAR, for columns: [org.hibernate.mapping.Column(foo)]" Diving into the code it seems the ID is always considered a Value type; i.e. "anything that is persisted by value, instead of by reference. It is essentially a Hibernate Type, together with zero or more columns." I could make my EntityFoo a value type by declaring it serializable, but I wouldn't expect this would lead to the right outcome either. I would have thought that Hibernate would consider the type of the column to be integer (or whatever the actual type of the parent's ID is), just like it would with a normal one-to-one link, but this doesn't appear to kick in when I also declare it an ID. Am I going beyond what is possible by trying to combine @OneToOne with @Id? And if so, how could one model this relationship sensibly?

    Read the article

  • Hibernate - get the size of a list in a property

    - by mada
    I have a class A which have a list of B elements. In my A class i would like to add: int size; which will be valued with the number of B elements. So when I would call myA.getSize() I will have it. Is it possible to map a count query with a single property in the hibernate mapping? I don't want to load the list that is why i would like to add a size property.

    Read the article

  • Django: Sum on an date attribute grouped by month/year

    - by Sébastien Piquemal
    Hello, I'd like to put this query from SQL to Django: "select date_format(date, '%Y-%m') as month, sum(quantity) as hours from hourentries group by date_format(date, '%Y-%m') order by date;" The part that causes problem is to group by month when aggregating. I tried this (which seemed logical), but it didn't work : HourEntries.objects.order_by("date").values("date__month").aggregate(Sum("quantity"))

    Read the article

  • Setup Hibernate Session Factory in Tomcat

    - by Mark Estrada
    Hi All, I have been reading around the Hibernate core and I am still exploring some of its capability. It was mention in the docs that the SessionFactory is the heavyweight component of Hibernate thus it should be setup only once in a web application and in singleton. Each Session factory should pertain to one JDBC connection. Does anybody knows how to properly setup the session factory in tomcat web applications? Any links or tutorials would be better. Should I set it up as a contextlistener class also? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • @OneToOne and @JoinColumn, auto delete null entity , doable?

    - by smallufo
    I have two Entities , with the following JPA annotations : @Entity @Table(name = "Owner") public class Owner implements Serializable { @Id @GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.AUTO) @Column(name = "id") private long id; @OneToOne(fetch=FetchType.EAGER , cascade=CascadeType.ALL) @JoinColumn(name="Data_id") private Data Data; } @Entity @Table(name = "Data") public class Data implements Serializable { @Id private long id; } Owner and Data has one-to-one mapping , the owning side is Owner. The problem occurs when I execute : owner.setData(null) ; ownerDao.update(owner) ; The "Owner" table's Data_id becomes null , that's correct. But the "Data" row is not deleted automatically. I have to write another DataDao , and another service layer to wrap the two actions ( ownerDao.update(owner) ; dataDao.delete(data); ) Is it possible to make a data row automatically deleted when the owning Owner set it to null ?

    Read the article

  • Need a workaround to filter on related model and aggregated fields in Django

    - by parxier
    I opened a ticket for this problem. In a nutshell here is my model: class Plan(models.Model): cap = models.IntegerField() class Phone(models.Model): plan = models.ForeignKey(Plan, related_name='phones') class Call(models.Model): phone = models.ForeignKey(Phone, related_name='calls') cost = models.IntegerField() I want to run a query like this one: Phone.objects.annotate(total_cost=Sum('calls__cost')).filter(total_cost__gte=0.5*F('plan__cap')) Unfortunately Django generates bad SQL: SELECT "app_phone"."id", "app_phone"."plan_id", SUM("app_call"."cost") AS "total_cost" FROM "app_phone" INNER JOIN "app_plan" ON ("app_phone"."plan_id" = "app_plan"."id") LEFT OUTER JOIN "app_call" ON ("app_phone"."id" = "app_call"."phone_id") GROUP BY "app_phone"."id", "app_phone"."plan_id" HAVING SUM("app_call"."cost") >= 0.5 * "app_plan"."cap" and errors with: ProgrammingError: column "app_plan.cap" must appear in the GROUP BY clause or be used in an aggregate function LINE 1: ...."plan_id" HAVING SUM("app_call"."cost") >= 0.5 * "app_plan".... Is there any workaround apart from running raw SQL?

    Read the article

  • Hibernate bug using Oracle?

    - by Lothar
    Hello, I've got the problem, that I use a property in the persistence.xml which forces Hibernate to look only for tables in the given schema. <property name="hibernate.default_schema" value="FOO"/> Because we are using now 4 different schemas the actual solution is to generate 4 war files with a modified persistence.xml. That not very elegant. Does anybody know, how I can configure the schema with a property or by manipulation the JDBC connection string? I'm using Oracle 10g, 10_2_3 Patch. Thanks a lot.

    Read the article

  • Seam/Hibernate and PostgreSQL -- Any issues?

    - by Shadowman
    I'm currently working on a project that makes use of Seam/Hibernate (JPA) on MySQL. I'm reconsidering moving towards PostgreSQL after investigating some of the features that it provides. My question is, is there anything I need to worry about with this configuration? Limitations? Gotchas? Things to watch out for? There will be some BLOBs stored in the database (images, X.509 certificates, etc.) Will that be a problem using PostgreSQL? Are there any particular configuration changes or tweaks that I should make in my Hibernate configuration? Thanks for any advice you can give!

    Read the article

  • Hibernate - strange order of native SQL parameters

    - by Xorty
    Hello, I am trying to use native MySQL's MD5 crypto func, so I defined custom insert in my mapping file. <hibernate-mapping package="tutorial"> <class name="com.xorty.mailclient.client.domain.User" table="user"> <id name="login" type="string" column="login"></id> <property name="password"> <column name="password" /> </property> <sql-insert>INSERT INTO user (login,password) VALUES ( ?, MD5(?) )</sql-insert> </class> </hibernate-mapping> Then I create User (pretty simple POJO with just 2 Strings - login and password) and try to persist it. session.beginTransaction(); // we have no such user in here yet User junitUser = (User) session.load(User.class, "junit_user"); assert (null == junitUser); // insert new user junitUser = new User(); junitUser.setLogin("junit_user"); junitUser.setPassword("junitpass"); session.save(junitUser); session.getTransaction().commit(); What actually happens? User is created, but with reversed parameters order. He has login "junitpass" and "junit_user" is MD5 encrypted and stored as password. What did I wrong? Thanks EDIT: ADDING POJO class package com.xorty.mailclient.client.domain; import java.io.Serializable; /** * POJO class representing user. * @author MisoV * @version 0.1 */ public class User implements Serializable { /** * Generated UID */ private static final long serialVersionUID = -969127095912324468L; private String login; private String password; /** * @return login */ public String getLogin() { return login; } /** * @return password */ public String getPassword() { return password; } /** * @param login the login to set */ public void setLogin(String login) { this.login = login; } /** * @param password the password to set */ public void setPassword(String password) { this.password = password; } /** * @see java.lang.Object#toString() * @return login */ @Override public String toString() { return login; } /** * Creates new User. * @param login User's login. * @param password User's password. */ public User(String login, String password) { setLogin(login); setPassword(password); } /** * Default constructor */ public User() { } /** * @return hashCode * @see java.lang.Object#hashCode() */ @Override public int hashCode() { final int prime = 31; int result = 1; result = prime * result + ((null == login) ? 0 : login.hashCode()); result = prime * result + ((null == password) ? 0 : password.hashCode()); return result; } /** * @param obj Compared object * @return True, if objects are same. Else false. * @see java.lang.Object#equals(java.lang.Object) */ @Override public boolean equals(Object obj) { if (this == obj) { return true; } if (obj == null) { return false; } if (!(obj instanceof User)) { return false; } User other = (User) obj; if (login == null) { if (other.login != null) { return false; } } else if (!login.equals(other.login)) { return false; } if (password == null) { if (other.password != null) { return false; } } else if (!password.equals(other.password)) { return false; } return true; } }

    Read the article

  • Fluent nHibernate - How to map a non-key column on an association table?

    - by The Matt
    Taking an example that is provided on the Fluent nHibernate website, I need to extend it slightly: I need to add a 'Quantity' column to the StoreProduct table. How would I map this using nHibernate? An example mapping is provided for the given scenario above, but I'm not sure how I would get the Quantity column to map: public class StoreMap : ClassMap<Store> { public StoreMap() { Id(x => x.Id); Map(x => x.Name); HasMany(x => x.Employee) .Inverse() .Cascade.All(); HasManyToMany(x => x.Products) .Cascade.All() .Table("StoreProduct"); } }

    Read the article

  • How to access the backing field of an inherited class using fluent nhibernate

    - by Akk
    How do i set the Access Strategy in the mapping class to point to the inherited _photos field? public class Content { private IList<Photo> _photos; public Content() { _photos = new List<Photo>(); } public virtual IEnumerable<Photo> Photos { get { return _photos; } } public virtual void AddPhoto() {...} } public class Article : Content { public string Body {get; set;} } I am currently using thw following to try and locate the backing field but an exception is thrown as it cannot be found. public class ArticleMap : ClassMap<Article> { HasManyToMany(x => x.Photos) .Access.CamelCaseField(Prefix.Underscore) //_photos //... } i tried moving the backing field _photos directly into the class and the access works. So how can i access the backing field of an inherited class?

    Read the article

  • Good design of mapping Java Domain objects to Tables (using Hibernate)

    - by M. McKenzie
    Hey guys, I have a question that is more in the realm of design, than implementation. I'm also happy for anyone to point out resources for the answer and I'll gladly, research for myself. Highly simplified Java and SQL: Say I have a business domain POJO called 'Picture' with three attributes. class Picture int idPicture String fileName long size Say I have another business domain POJO called "Item" with 3 attributes Class Item int idItem String itemName ArrayList itemPictures These would be a normal simple relationship. You could say that 'Picture' object, will never exist outside an 'Item' object. Assume a picture belongs only to a specific item, but that an item can have multiple pictures Now - using good database design (3rd Normal Form), we know that we should put items and pictures in their own tables. Here is what I assume would be correct. table Item int idItem (primary key) String itemName table Picture int idPicture (primary key) varchar(45) fileName long size int idItem (foreign key) Here is my question: If you are making Hibernate mapping files for these objects. In the data design, your Picture table needs a column to refer to the Item, so that a foreign key relation can be maintained. However,in your business domain objects - your Picture does not hold a reference/attribute to the idItem - and does not need to know it. A java Picture instance is always instantiated inside an Item instance. If you want to know the Item that the Picture belongs to you are already in the correct scope. Call myItem.getIdItem() and myItem.getItemPictures(),and you have the two pieces of information you need. I know that Hibernate tools have a generator that can auto make your POJO's from looking at your database. My problem stems from the fact that I planned out the data design for this experiment/project first. Then when I went to make the domain java objects, I realized that good design dictated that the objects hold other objects in a nested way. This is obviously different from the way that a database schema is - where all objects(tables) are flat and hold no other complex types within them. What is a good way to reconcile this? Would you: (A) Make the hibernate mapping files so that Picture.hbm.xml has a mapping to the POJO parent's idItem Field (if it's even possible) (B) Add an int attribute in the Picture class to refer to the idItem and set it at instantiation, thus simplifying the hbm.xml mapping file by having all table fields as local attributes in the class (C) Fix the database design because it is wrong, dork. I'd truly appreciate any feedback

    Read the article

  • Java JPA @OneToMany neededs to reciprocate @ManyToOne?

    - by bguiz
    Create Table A ( ID varchar(8), Primary Key(ID) ); Create Table B ( ID varchar(8), A_ID varchar(8), Primary Key(ID), Foreign Key(A_ID) References A(ID) ); Given that I have created two tables using the SQL statements above, and I want to create Entity classes for them, for the class B, I have these member attributes: @Id @Column(name = "ID", nullable = false, length = 8) private String id; @JoinColumn(name = "A_ID", referencedColumnName = "ID", nullable = false) @ManyToOne(optional = false) private A AId; In class A, do I need to reciprocate the many-to-one relationship? @Id @Column(name = "ID", nullable = false, length = 8) private String id; @OneToMany(cascade = CascadeType.ALL, mappedBy = "AId") private List<B> BList; //<-- Is this attribute necessary? Is it a necessary or a good idea to have a reciprocal @OneToMany for the @ManyToOne? If I make the design decision to leave out the @OneToMany annotated attribute now, will come back to bite me further down.

    Read the article

  • JPA/Hibernate Parent/Child relationship

    - by NubieJ
    Hi I am quite new to JPA/Hibernate (Java in general) so my question is as follows (note, I have searched far and wide and have not come across an answer to this): I have two entities: Parent and Child (naming changed). Parent contains a list of Children and Children refers back to parent. e.g. @Entity public class Parent { @Id @Basic @GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.IDENTITY) @Column(name = "PARENT_ID", insertable = false, updatable = false) private int id; /* ..... */ @OneToMany(cascade = { CascadeType.ALL }, fetch = FetchType.LAZY) @JoinColumn(name = "PARENT_ID", referencedColumnName = "PARENT_ID", nullable = true) private Set<child> children; /* ..... */ } @Entity public class Child { @Id @Basic @GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.IDENTITY) @Column(name = "CHILD_ID", insertable = false, updatable = false) private int id; /* ..... */ @ManyToOne(cascade = { CascadeType.REFRESH }, fetch = FetchType.EAGER, optional = false) @JoinColumn(name = "PARENT_ID", referencedColumnName = "PARENT_ID") private Parent parent; /* ..... */ } I want to be able to do the following: Retrieve a Parent entity which would contain a list of all its children (List), however, when listing Parent (getting List, it of course should omit the children from the results, therefore setting FetchType.LAZY. Retrieve a Child entity which would contain an instance of the Parent entity. Using the code above (or similar) results in two exceptions: Retrieving Parent: A cycle is detected in the object graph. This will cause infinitely deep XML... Retrieving Child: org.hibernate.LazyInitializationException: failed to lazily initialize a collection of role: xxxxxxxxxxx, no session or session was closed When retrieving the Parent entity, I am using a named query (i.e. calling it specifically) @NamedQuery(name = "Parent.findByParentId", query = "SELECT p FROM Parent AS p LEFT JOIN FETCH p.children where p.id = :id") Code to get Parent (i.e. service layer): public Parent findByParentId(int parentId) { Query query = em.createNamedQuery("Parent.findByParentId"); query.setParameter("id", parentId); return (Parent) query.getSingleResult(); } Why am I getting a LazyInitializationException event though the List property on the Parent entity is set as Lazy (when retrieving the Child entity)?

    Read the article

  • How to exclude results with get_object_or_404?

    - by googletorp
    In Django you can use the exclude to create SQL similar to not equal. An example could be. Model.objects.exclude(status='deleted') Now this works great and exclude is very flexible. Since I'm a bit lazy, I would like to get that functionality when using get_object_or_404, but I haven't found a way to do this, since you cannot use exclude on get_object_or_404. What I want is to do something like this: model = get_object_or_404(pk=id, status__exclude='deleted') But unfortunately this doesn't work as there isn't an exclude query filter or similar. The best I've come up with so far is doing something like this: object = get_object_or_404(pk=id) if object.status == 'deleted': return HttpResponseNotfound('text') Doing something like that, really defeats the point of using get_object_or_404, since it no longer is a handy one-liner. Alternatively I could do: object = get_object_or_404(pk=id, status__in=['list', 'of', 'items']) But that wouldn't be very maintainable, as I would need to keep the list up to date. I'm wondering if I'm missing some trick or feature in django to use get_object_or_404 to get the desired result?

    Read the article

  • Hibernate pluralization

    - by matiasf
    I have A MySQL database currently in production use for a CakePHP application A Java SE application accessing the same database via Hibernate, currently in development. I'm using the Netbeans "automigrate" feature to create the POJO classes and XML files (do I really need the XML files when using annotations?). As the schema is quite complex creating the tables manually is way too much work. Cake expects all DB tables to be pluralized (the Address class is automagically mapped to the addresses table). When running the Netbeans automigration it then does pluralization on the already pluralized table names (I'm getting Addresses.java and setAddresseses() methods). I know I'm asking for trouble running two very different data layers against the same database, but I'd like to know if it's possible to have Netbeans generating the POJO classes in singular form or if there is another (better) way to manage this.

    Read the article

  • How to map a property for HQL usage only (in Hibernate)?

    - by ManBugra
    i have a table like this one: id | name | score mapped to a POJO via XML with Hibernate. The score column i only need in oder by - clauses in HQL. The value for the score column is calculated by an algorithm and updated every 24 hours via SQL batch process (JDBC). So i dont wanna pollute my POJO with properties i dont need at runtime. For a single column that may be not a problem, but i have several different score columns. Is there a way to map a property for HQL use only? For example like this: <property name="score" type="double" ignore="true"/> so that i still can do this: from Pojo p order by p.score but my POJO implementation can look like this: public class Pojo { private long id; private String name; // ... } No Setter for score provided or property added to implementation. using the latest Hibernate version for Java.

    Read the article

  • Hibernate without primary keys generated by db?

    - by Michael Jones
    I'm building a data warehouse and want to use InfiniDB as the storage engine. However, it doesn't allow primary keys or foreign key constraints (or any constraints for that matter). Hibernate complains "The database returned no natively generated identity value" when I perform an insert. Each table is relational, and contains a unique integer column that was previously used as the primary key - I want to keep that, but just not have the constraint in the db that the column is the primary key. I'm assuming the problem is that Hibernate expects the db to return a generated key. Is it possible to override this behaviour so I can set the primary key field's value myself and keep Hibernate happy? -- edit -- Two of the mappings are as follows: <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE hibernate-mapping PUBLIC "-//Hibernate/Hibernate Mapping DTD 3.0//EN" "http://hibernate.sourceforge.net/hibernate-mapping-3.0.dtd"> <!-- Generated Jun 1, 2010 2:49:51 PM by Hibernate Tools 3.2.1.GA --> <hibernate-mapping> <class name="com.example.project.Visitor" table="visitor" catalog="orwell"> <id name="id" type="java.lang.Long"> <column name="id" /> <generator class="identity" /> </id> <property name="firstSeen" type="timestamp"> <column name="first_seen" length="19" /> </property> <property name="lastSeen" type="timestamp"> <column name="last_seen" length="19" /> </property> <property name="sessionId" type="string"> <column name="session_id" length="26" unique="true" /> </property> <property name="userId" type="java.lang.Long"> <column name="user_id" /> </property> <set name="visits" inverse="true"> <key> <column name="visitor_id" /> </key> <one-to-many class="com.example.project.Visit" /> </set> </class> </hibernate-mapping> and: <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE hibernate-mapping PUBLIC "-//Hibernate/Hibernate Mapping DTD 3.0//EN" "http://hibernate.sourceforge.net/hibernate-mapping-3.0.dtd"> <!-- Generated Jun 1, 2010 2:49:51 PM by Hibernate Tools 3.2.1.GA --> <hibernate-mapping> <class name="com.example.project.Visit" table="visit" catalog="orwell"> <id name="id" type="java.lang.Long"> <column name="id" /> <generator class="identity" /> </id> <many-to-one name="visitor" class="com.example.project.Visitor" fetch="join" cascade="all"> <column name="visitor_id" /> </many-to-one> <property name="visitId" type="string"> <column name="visit_id" length="20" unique="true" /> </property> <property name="startTime" type="timestamp"> <column name="start_time" length="19" /> </property> <property name="endTime" type="timestamp"> <column name="end_time" length="19" /> </property> <property name="userAgent" type="string"> <column name="user_agent" length="65535" /> </property> <set name="pageViews" inverse="true"> <key> <column name="visit_id" /> </key> <one-to-many class="com.example.project.PageView" /> </set> </class> </hibernate-mapping>

    Read the article

  • JPA entitylisteners and @embeddable

    - by seanizer
    I have a class hierarchy of JPA entities that all inherit from a BaseEntity class: @MappedSuperclass @EntityListeners( { ValidatorListener.class }) public abstract class BaseEntity implements Serializable { // other stuff } I want all entities that implement a given interface to be validated automatically on persist and/or update. Here's what I've got. My ValidatorListener: public class ValidatorListener { private enum Type { PERSIST, UPDATE } @PrePersist public void checkPersist(final Object entity) { if (entity instanceof Validateable) { this.check((Validateable) entity, Type.PERSIST); } } @PreUpdate public void checkUpdate(final Object entity) { if (entity instanceof Validateable) { this.check((Validateable) entity, Type.UPDATE); } } private void check(final Validateable entity, final Type persist) { switch (persist) { case PERSIST: if (entity instanceof Persist) { ((Persist) entity).persist(); } if (entity instanceof PersistOrUpdate) { ((PersistOrUpdate) entity).persistOrUpdate(); } break; case UPDATE: if (entity instanceof Update) { ((Update) entity).update(); } if (entity instanceof PersistOrUpdate) { ((PersistOrUpdate) entity).persistOrUpdate(); } break; default: break; } } } and here's my Validateable interface that it checks against (the outer interface is just a marker, the inner contain the methods): public interface Validateable { interface Persist extends Validateable { void persist(); } interface PersistOrUpdate extends Validateable { void persistOrUpdate(); } interface Update extends Validateable { void update(); } } All of this works, however I would like to extend this behavior to Embeddable classes. I know two solutions: call the validation method of the embeddable object manually from the entity validation method: public void persistOrUpdate(){ // validate my own properties first // then manually validate the embeddable property: myEmbeddable.persistOrUpdate(); // this works but I'd like something that I don't have to call manually } use reflection, checking all properties to see if their type is of one of their interface types. This would work, but it's not pretty. Is there a more elegant solution?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  | Next Page >