[hibernate-dev] [feature request][discuss] smoother serializers integration?

Thu May 4 10:32:35 EDT 2017

Few more points:

1. Dto dont help at any moment - or you put that logic in the conversion
and you are back to start
2. Making jaxb/jsonb easy to integrate is the goal IMO. No need to
integrate with them but just provide some utility one level further than
existing ones

Le 4 mai 2017 16:13, "Steve Ebersole" <steve at hibernate.org> a écrit :

> Oops, that (3) in previous reply should have read:
> 3. supporting each format creates a new "optional" library dependency
>
> Overall, I like Christian's approach as a potential generalized approach to
> this.  Basically a combination of
>
>    1. a query used to provide the "view source values"
>    2. some indication of how to map those "source values" to your view
> model
>
>
> And again, I think 6.0's improved dynamic-instantiation queries are a
> simple, already-built-in way to achieve that for most cases.  But I am open
> to discussing a way to supply that combination via API if we deem that
> would be good - although then I'd also question how the current
> TupleTransformer does not meet that need.
>
> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 8:43 AM Steve Ebersole <steve at hibernate.org> wrote:
>
> > Were there a standard "represent something in XML-ish format" contract
> > portable across a number of formats (XML, JAXB, JSON, etc) then I'd be
> more
> > inclined to agree with this.  But as it is, supporting this would mean
> > Hibernate implementing multiple such contracts, one per format.  However,
> >
> >    1. these formats are not our core competency
> >    2. maintaining a complete set of these transformers across all the
> >    popular formats du-jour is a large undertaking
> >    3. I am not convinced that
> >
> > All of these increase the technical risk.
> >
> > Additionally, to properly support this we'd really need the ability to
> > then "map" multiple views for a given entity-graph-root.  What I mean by
> > that, is that such DTO approaches often need multiple "views" of a given
> > entity, e.g. a CompanyListDTO, CompanyOverviewDTO,
> > CompanyDetailsGeneralDTO, etc for a Company entity.  The point of this is
> > that
> >
> >    1. the transformers for these are specific to each DTO type and would
> >    be applied per-transformation
> >    2. were Hibernate to "provide" this for applications
> >
> > IMO the use of queries to obtain views is logical.  Populating each of
> > those specific DTOs (CompanyListDTO, etc) in the most efficient way is
> > going to require very different SQL for each DTO.  This implies some kind
> > of "mapping" to be able associate each DTO with query.
> >
> > Given 6.0's improved dynamic-instantiation support, I even think that is
> a
> > great solution as well *for most cases*.
> >
> > So, while my objection has a "practical impact" component, I also just
> > question whether Hibernate integrating with each format's "serializer" is
> > the proper solution.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 5:08 AM Christian Beikov <
> > christian.beikov at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This is exactly what I am trying to do with Blaze-Persistence Entity
> >> Views, making DTOs sexy and efficient :)
> >>
> >> Here a quick overview of how that looks like right now:
> >>
> >> https://persistence.blazebit.com/documentation/entity-view/
> manual/en_US/index.html#first-entity-view-query
> >>
> >> One of my targets is to make it possible to do something like this
> >>
> >> entityManager.createQuery("FROM Order o",
> OrderDTO.class).getResultList()
> >>
> >> and get an optimal query, as well as objects with only the necessary
> >> contents.
> >>
> >> Maybe we can collaborate on that somehow?
> >>
> >>
> >> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
> >> *Christian Beikov*
> >> Am 04.05.2017 um 10:20 schrieb Emmanuel Bernard:
> >> > Following up a bit on my previous email.
> >> >
> >> > While a core integration might be best I think, if there are too much
> >> > reluctance, we can start with a dedicated hibernate-dto or whatever
> >> > module or even separate project that makes life easier for these "pass
> >> > through" use cases. This could be in the form of a wrapper API of sort
> >> > and hence not affect existing Hibernate ORM APIs.
> >> >
> >> > Note that the ResultTransformer approach feels like it goes a long way
> >> > towards fixing the problem but as demonstrated in Vlad's article
> >> >
> >> https://vladmihalcea.com/2017/04/03/why-you-should-use-the-
> hibernate-resulttransformer-to-customize-result-set-mappings/
> >> > it still requires quite a bit of code and a special DTO constructor
> >> > object. That's what we need to get rid of I think.
> >> >
> >> > Emmanuel
> >> >
> >> > On Thu 17-05-04 10:04, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
> >> >> I was very much in the Vlad, Steve, Christian camp until relatively
> >> >> recently. One of my main concern being that replacing a proxy by null
> >> >> was really sending the wrong message. So I was against having
> Hibernate
> >> >> ORM facilitate such a transformation.
> >> >>
> >> >> I am changing my mind because I am realizing that a lot of
> applications
> >> >> are less complex that my perceived median. A lot of apps really just
> >> >> want data to be fetched out and then passed to jackson (implicitly)
> and
> >> >> pushed out as a REST response in JSON or some other serialization
> >> >> protocol.
> >> >>
> >> >> So while we could try and keep the stance that such a solution should
> >> >> remain out of scope of Hibernate ORM core, we should have a very
> smooth
> >> >> integration with something like MapStruct to create such bounded DTO
> on
> >> >> the fly. Ideally with as close to zero code as possible from the user
> >> >> point of view.
> >> >> I can't really describe how that could look like because I am not
> >> >> familiar enough with MapStruct but I think it should have the
> following
> >> >> characteristics:
> >> >>
> >> >> 1. do an implicit binding between the mapped object graph and a
> >> detached
> >> >>    object graph with a 1-1 mapping of type and replacing lazy objects
> >> and
> >> >>    collections with null. That's the smoothest approach and the most
> >> >>    common use case but also the one where an inexperienced person
> could
> >> >>    shoot at someone else's foot
> >> >> 2. do a binding between the mapped object graph and a detached
> version
> >> of
> >> >>    that object graph with a 1-1 mapping of type, but declaratively
> >> >>    expressing the boundaries for the detached version. This enforces
> a
> >> >>    clear thinking of the boundaries and will load lazy data in case
> the
> >> >>    object graph loaded is missing a bit. I like the idea on principle
> >> but
> >> >>    I think it overlaps a lot with the fetch graph.
> >> >> 3. offer a full integration between MapStruct and Hibernate ORM by
> >> >>    letting people express a full fledge MapStruct transformation
> >> between
> >> >>    the managed object graph and a different target structure
> >> >>
> >> >> I favored MapStruct over Dozer because we know the MapStruct lead
> >> quite well ;)
> >> >>
> >> >> Note however that the MapStruct approach requires an explicit object
> >> >> copy, it feels a bit sad to have to double memory consumption. But
> that
> >> >> might be a good enough approach and bypassing the managed object
> >> >> creation leads to questions around the Persistence Context contract
> >> >> where loading an object supposedly means it will be in the PC.
> >> >> Maybe a constructor like query syntax allowing to reference a
> MapStruct
> >> >> conversion logic might work?
> >> >>
> >> >>     select mapStruct('order-and-items', o) from Order o left join
> >> fetch o.items
> >> >>
> >> >> Emmanuel
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed 17-04-19 14:29, Vlad Mihalcea wrote:
> >> >>> Hi,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Although I keep on seeing this request from time to time, I still
> >> think
> >> >>> it's more like a Code Smell.
> >> >>> Entities are useful for when you plan to modify them. Otherwise, a
> DTO
> >> >>> projection is much more efficient, and you don't suffer from
> >> >>> LazyInitializationException.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> With the ResultTransformer, you can even build graphs of entities,
> as
> >> >>> explained in this article;
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> https://vladmihalcea.com/2017/04/03/why-you-should-use-the-
> hibernate-resulttransformer-to-customize-result-set-mappings/
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Due to how Hibernate Proxies are handled, without Bytecode
> >> Enhancement,
> >> >>> it's difficult to replace a Proxy with null after the Session is
> >> closed. If
> >> >>> we implemented this, we'd have to take into consideration both
> >> Javassist
> >> >>> and ByteBuddy as well as ByteCode Enhancements.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> all in all, the implementation effort might not justify the benefit,
> >> and
> >> >>> I'm skeptical of offering a feature that does not encourage data
> >> access
> >> >>> Best Practices.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Vlad
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Christian Beikov <
> >> >>> christian.beikov at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Hey Romain,
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I don't think it is a good idea to expose entities directly if you
> >> >>>> really need a subset of the data.
> >> >>>> Reasons for that thinking are that it gets hard to define what
> needs
> >> to
> >> >>>> be fetched or is safe to be used for a particular use case.
> Obviously
> >> >>>> serialization is like a follow-up problem.
> >> >>>> I see 2 possible solutions to the problem and both boil down to the
> >> use
> >> >>>> of DTOs.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>   1. Use an object mapper(e.g. Dozer) that maps entity object
> graphs
> >> to
> >> >>>>      custom DTO types.
> >> >>>>   2. Use specialized DTOs in queries.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Implementing 1. does not help you with lazy loading issues and 2.
> >> might
> >> >>>> require very intrusive changes in queries which is why I
> implemented
> >> >>>> Blaze-Persistence Entity Views
> >> >>>> <https://github.com/beikov/blaze-persistence#entity-view-usage>.
> >> >>>> This is a library that allows you to define DTOs with mappings to
> the
> >> >>>> entity. In a query you can define that you want results to be
> >> >>>> "materialized" as instances of the DTO type.
> >> >>>> This reduces the pain induced by properly separating the
> >> "presentation
> >> >>>> model" from the "persistence model" and at the same time will
> improve
> >> >>>> the performance by utilizing the mapping information.
> >> >>>> I don't want to advertise too much, just wanted to say that I had
> the
> >> >>>> same issues over and over which is why I started that project.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
> >> >>>>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
> >> >>>> *Christian Beikov*
> >> >>>> Am 19.04.2017 um 10:51 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:
> >> >>>>> Hi guys,
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Short sumarry: Wonder if hibernate could get a feature to kind of
> >> either
> >> >>>>> unproxy or freeze the entities once leaving the managed context to
> >> avoid
> >> >>>>> uncontrolled lazy loading on one side and serialization issues on
> >> another
> >> >>>>> side.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Use case example: a common example is a REST service exposing
> >> directly
> >> >>>>> hibernate entities (which is more and more common with
> microservice
> >> >>>>> "movement").
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Objective: the goal is to not need any step - or reduce them a
> lot -
> >> >>>>> between the hibernate interaction and a potential serialization to
> >> avoid
> >> >>>>> issues with lazy loading and unexpected loading. Today it requires
> >> some
> >> >>>>> custom and hibernate specific logic in the serializer which kind
> of
> >> >>>> breaks
> >> >>>>> the transversality of the two concerns (serialization and object
> >> >>>>> management/loading).
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Implementation options I see:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> 1. a callback requesting if the lazy relationship should be
> fetched,
> >> >>>>> something like
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> public interface GraphVisitor {
> >> >>>>>       boolean shouldLoad(Object rootEntity, Property property);
> >> >>>>> }
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> 2. An utility to remove any proxy potentially throwing an
> exception
> >> and
> >> >>>>> replacing the value by null or an empty collection, something like
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> MyEntity e = Hibernate.deepUnproxy(entity);
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> 3. A switch of the proxy implementation, this is close to 2 but
> >> wouldn't
> >> >>>>> require a call to any utility, just a configuration in the
> >> persistence
> >> >>>> unit.
> >> >>>>> Side note: of course all 3 options can be mixed to create a single
> >> >>>> solution
> >> >>>>> like having 3 implemented based on 1 for instance.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Configuration proposal: this would be activated through a property
> >> in the
> >> >>>>> persistence unit (this shouldn't be only global IMHO cause
> >> otherwise you
> >> >>>>> can't mix 2 kind of units, like one for JSF and one for JAX-RS to
> be
> >> >>>>> concrete). This should also be activable as a query hint i think -
> >> but
> >> >>>> more
> >> >>>>> a nice to have.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> What this feature wouldn't be responsible for: cycles. If
> >> relationships
> >> >>>> are
> >> >>>>> bidirectional then the unproxied entity would still "loop" if you
> >> browse
> >> >>>>> the object graph - this responsability would stay in the consumer
> >> since
> >> >>>> it
> >> >>>>> doesn't depend on hibernate directly but more on a plain object
> >> handling.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> What do you think?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >> >>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> >> >>>>> <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Blog
> >> >>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/
> >> >>>> rmannibucau> |
> >> >>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | JavaEE
> Factory
> >> >>>>> <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com>
> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>>>> hibernate-dev mailing list
> >> >>>>> hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >> >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
> >> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>>> hibernate-dev mailing list
> >> >>>> hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >> >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
> >> >>>>
> >> >>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>> hibernate-dev mailing list
> >> >>> hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> hibernate-dev mailing list
> >> >> hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > hibernate-dev mailing list
> >> > hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> hibernate-dev mailing list
> >> hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
> >>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> hibernate-dev mailing list
> hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev