Eager fetching not working with enums and lobs
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Sounds like a bug to me.
Craig On Jul 6, 2007, at 10:28 AM, Kevin Sutter wrote: > I am finding that the supposed default action of Eager fetching is not > happening with @Enumerated and @Lob fields. If I explicitly > specify the > @Basic annotation, then the fields are eagerly fetched. But, > without this > extraneous @Basic, these fields are lazily loaded. This action > does not > seem to be consistent with the spec. Nor, can I find any mention > of this > alternate behavior in our OpenJPA manual. Sounds like a bug to > me. Any > other insights? > > This works (eager loading kicks in): > > @Basic @Enumerated(EnumType.STRING) > private Gender gender; > > This does not work (lazy loading kicks in): > > @Enumerated(EnumType.STRING) > private Gender gender; > > I have also tried to use defaults (without any annotations), and lazy > loading still kicks in: > > private Gender gender; > > Thanks, > Kevin Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[hidden email] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! |
||||||||
smime.p7s (3K)
|
In reply to this post
by Kevin Sutter
|
||||||||
|
|
On Jul 6, 2007, at 10:52 AM, Patrick Linskey wrote: > The spec doesn't seem to discuss it, but I think that lazy is a pretty > good default behavior for @Lob field types -- typically @Lob things > are big, so you often don't want them in the default fetch graph. Enum is different, though. Enum should be eager fetching by default. Lazy fetching is optional, so we can decide what we want to do. It seems that the existence of @Basic should not change our strategy. And we should default to lazy fetching for Lob and eager fetching for Enum. Craig > > -Patrick > > On 7/6/07, Kevin Sutter <[hidden email]> wrote: >> I am finding that the supposed default action of Eager fetching is >> not >> happening with @Enumerated and @Lob fields. If I explicitly >> specify the >> @Basic annotation, then the fields are eagerly fetched. But, >> without this >> extraneous @Basic, these fields are lazily loaded. This action >> does not >> seem to be consistent with the spec. Nor, can I find any mention >> of this >> alternate behavior in our OpenJPA manual. Sounds like a bug to >> me. Any >> other insights? >> >> This works (eager loading kicks in): >> >> @Basic @Enumerated(EnumType.STRING) >> private Gender gender; >> >> This does not work (lazy loading kicks in): >> >> @Enumerated(EnumType.STRING) >> private Gender gender; >> >> I have also tried to use defaults (without any annotations), and lazy >> loading still kicks in: >> >> private Gender gender; >> >> Thanks, >> Kevin >> > > > -- > Patrick Linskey > 202 669 5907 Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[hidden email] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
Hi Kevin,
If you can figure out what the spec (9.1.18 and 9.1.19) sez, my hat's off to you. What a mudbake this is. Part of the issue is the annotation definition. If @Basic is specified, and the user doesn't explicitly override the fetch type, it appears to our annotation processor as if the user specified EAGER. Even if @Basic is used with @Lob, if lazy is wanted, it has to be explicitly stated. Maybe we should discuss @Lob in more detail. It isn't obvious to me that @Basic can always be used and we might have an option to choose a better default for the fetch behavior if @Basic annotation is omitted. Craig On Jul 6, 2007, at 11:37 AM, Kevin Sutter wrote: > I guess the spec is a bit clearer on this than I first thought. > Section > 9.1.8 of the JPA spec indicates that @Basic is optional and applies > to the > following types: > > "..Java primitive types, wrappers of the primitive types, > java.lang.String, > java.math.BigInteger, > java.math.BigDecimal, java.util.Date, java.util.Calendar, > java.sql.Date, > java.sql.Time, java.sql.Timestamp, byte[], Byte[], char[], Character > [], > enums, and any other type that implements Serializable." > > And, since the default fetch type for @Basic is EAGER, it looks > like we need > to do eager fetching for both @Enumerated and @Lob fields unless > otherwise > overridden by a LAZY fetch type (ie. @Basic(fetch=LAZY)). Agree? > > Kevin > > On 7/6/07, Craig L Russell <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >> On Jul 6, 2007, at 10:52 AM, Patrick Linskey wrote: >> >> > The spec doesn't seem to discuss it, but I think that lazy is a >> pretty >> > good default behavior for @Lob field types -- typically @Lob things >> > are big, so you often don't want them in the default fetch graph. >> >> Enum is different, though. Enum should be eager fetching by default. >> >> Lazy fetching is optional, so we can decide what we want to do. It >> seems that the existence of @Basic should not change our strategy. >> And we should default to lazy fetching for Lob and eager fetching for >> Enum. >> >> Craig >> > >> > -Patrick >> > >> > On 7/6/07, Kevin Sutter <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> I am finding that the supposed default action of Eager fetching is >> >> not >> >> happening with @Enumerated and @Lob fields. If I explicitly >> >> specify the >> >> @Basic annotation, then the fields are eagerly fetched. But, >> >> without this >> >> extraneous @Basic, these fields are lazily loaded. This action >> >> does not >> >> seem to be consistent with the spec. Nor, can I find any mention >> >> of this >> >> alternate behavior in our OpenJPA manual. Sounds like a bug to >> >> me. Any >> >> other insights? >> >> >> >> This works (eager loading kicks in): >> >> >> >> @Basic @Enumerated(EnumType.STRING) >> >> private Gender gender; >> >> >> >> This does not work (lazy loading kicks in): >> >> >> >> @Enumerated(EnumType.STRING) >> >> private Gender gender; >> >> >> >> I have also tried to use defaults (without any annotations), >> and lazy >> >> loading still kicks in: >> >> >> >> private Gender gender; >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Kevin >> >> >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Patrick Linskey >> > 202 669 5907 >> >> Craig Russell >> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/ >> jdo >> 408 276-5638 mailto:[hidden email] >> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! >> >> >> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[hidden email] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
As I've already said, the spec is pretty opaque. Before assuming that
a missing @Basic annotation still has a default fetch=EAGER element, I'd want to see a spec clarification. Clearly there is no TCK test possible for this... Craig On Jul 9, 2007, at 9:17 AM, Kevin Sutter wrote: > :-) The only reason why I would want to eagerly fetch LOBs is to > satisfy > the intent of the spec. Since the @Basic annotation is optional > and the > default fetchType is EAGER, then I assert that the spec indicates > that LOBs > need to be fetched EAGERly. Do you read the spec differently? > > I will agree that "in practice" LOBs should not be fetched > EAGERly. But, we > need to be consistent with the spec so as not to surprise customers > as they > move from one JPA implementation to another. > > Kevin > > On 7/9/07, Patrick Linskey <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Indeed you do... why would we want to eagerly fetch LOBs? I >> understand >> the logic if @Basic is specified, but not if it is omitted. >> >> -Patrick >> >> On 7/9/07, Kevin Sutter <[hidden email]> wrote: >> > I have opened JIRA Issue 281 ( >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-281) for this >> problem. It >> > seems that we have agreed that enums should be EAGER by >> default. I just >> > have to convince everybody that lobs also have to be EAGER, by >> default... >> > :-) >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Kevin >> > >> > On 7/8/07, Kevin Sutter <[hidden email]> wrote: >> > > >> > > Craig, >> > > Comments below... >> > > >> > > On 7/7/07, Craig L Russell <[hidden email]> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > Hi Kevin, >> > > > >> > > > If you can figure out what the spec (9.1.18 and 9.1.19) sez, my >> hat's >> > > > off to you. What a mudbake this is. >> > > >> > > >> > > Isn't that just standard order of business with these specs? :-) >> > > >> > > Part of the issue is the annotation definition. If @Basic is >> > > > specified, and the user doesn't explicitly override the >> fetch type, >> > > > it appears to our annotation processor as if the user specified >> > > > EAGER. Even if @Basic is used with @Lob, if lazy is wanted, >> it has >> to >> > > > be explicitly stated. >> > > >> > > >> > > That's how I read the spec. The first paragraph of 9.1.18 >> indicates >> that >> > > @Basic can be applied to any those types (enums and lob types >> included). >> > > The default fetchType is EAGER. It also states that @Basic is >> optional. >> > > So, the way I read this is that we should be doing EAGER >> fetching for >> all of >> > > those listed types unless explicitly told to do otherwise via >> the LAZY >> > > fetchType via an @Basic annotation. >> > > >> > > Maybe we should discuss @Lob in more detail. It isn't obvious >> to me >> > > > that @Basic can always be used and we might have an option >> to choose >> > > > a better default for the fetch behavior if @Basic annotation is >> omitted. >> > > >> > > >> > > It seems to me that the spec is clear on the use and >> expectations of >> > > @Basic and the default fetchType of EAGER. Unless there are >> other >> spec >> > > references that contradict the statements in 9.1.18... >> > > >> > > Craig >> > > > >> > > > On Jul 6, 2007, at 11:37 AM, Kevin Sutter wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > I guess the spec is a bit clearer on this than I first >> thought. >> > > > > Section >> > > > > 9.1.8 of the JPA spec indicates that @Basic is optional and >> applies >> > > > > to the >> > > > > following types: >> > > > > >> > > > > "..Java primitive types, wrappers of the primitive types, >> > > > > java.lang.String, >> > > > > java.math.BigInteger, >> > > > > java.math.BigDecimal, java.util.Date, java.util.Calendar, >> > > > > java.sql.Date, >> > > > > java.sql.Time, java.sql.Timestamp, byte[], Byte[], char[], >> Character >> > > > > [], >> > > > > enums, and any other type that implements Serializable." >> > > > > >> > > > > And, since the default fetch type for @Basic is EAGER, it >> looks >> > > > > like we need >> > > > > to do eager fetching for both @Enumerated and @Lob fields >> unless >> > > > > otherwise >> > > > > overridden by a LAZY fetch type (ie. @Basic(fetch=LAZY)). >> Agree? >> > > > > >> > > > > Kevin >> > > > > >> > > > > On 7/6/07, Craig L Russell <[hidden email] > wrote: >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> On Jul 6, 2007, at 10:52 AM, Patrick Linskey wrote: >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > The spec doesn't seem to discuss it, but I think that >> lazy is a >> > > > >> pretty >> > > > >> > good default behavior for @Lob field types -- typically >> @Lob >> things >> > > > >> > are big, so you often don't want them in the default fetch >> graph. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> Enum is different, though. Enum should be eager fetching by >> default. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> Lazy fetching is optional, so we can decide what we want >> to do. >> It >> > > > >> seems that the existence of @Basic should not change our >> strategy. >> > > > >> And we should default to lazy fetching for Lob and eager >> fetching >> for >> > > > >> > > > >> Enum. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> Craig >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > -Patrick >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > On 7/6/07, Kevin Sutter <[hidden email]> wrote: >> > > > >> >> I am finding that the supposed default action of Eager >> fetching is >> > > > >> >> not >> > > > >> >> happening with @Enumerated and @Lob fields. If I >> explicitly >> > > > >> >> specify the >> > > > >> >> @Basic annotation, then the fields are eagerly >> fetched. But, >> > > > >> >> without this >> > > > >> >> extraneous @Basic, these fields are lazily loaded. This >> action >> > > > >> >> does not >> > > > >> >> seem to be consistent with the spec. Nor, can I find any >> mention >> > > > >> >> of this >> > > > >> >> alternate behavior in our OpenJPA manual. Sounds like >> a bug >> to >> > > > >> >> me. Any >> > > > >> >> other insights? >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> This works (eager loading kicks in): >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> @Basic @Enumerated(EnumType.STRING) >> > > > >> >> private Gender gender; >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> This does not work (lazy loading kicks in): >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> @Enumerated(EnumType.STRING) >> > > > >> >> private Gender gender; >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> I have also tried to use defaults (without any >> annotations), >> > > > >> and lazy >> > > > >> >> loading still kicks in: >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> private Gender gender; >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> Thanks, >> > > > >> >> Kevin >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > -- >> > > > >> > Patrick Linskey >> > > > >> > 202 669 5907 >> > > > >> >> > > > >> Craig Russell >> > > > >> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System >> http://java.sun.com/products/ >> > > > >> jdo >> > > > >> 408 276-5638 mailto: [hidden email] >> > > > >> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > Craig Russell >> > > > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System >> http://java.sun.com/products/jdo >> > > > 408 276-5638 mailto:[hidden email] >> > > > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Patrick Linskey >> 202 669 5907 >> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[hidden email] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
Ok, I don't like it either.
Craig On Jul 9, 2007, at 9:34 AM, Patrick Linskey wrote: > Hi, > > I think that 2.1.6 makes the behavior relatively clear: > > "If the type of the field or property is one of the following, it is > mapped in the same way as it > would if it were annotated as Basic:" > > That definitely implies that a field with no annotation should be > mapped as if the Basic annotation were present. > > However, I still don't like it. > > -Patrick > > On 7/9/07, Craig L Russell <[hidden email]> wrote: >> As I've already said, the spec is pretty opaque. Before assuming that >> a missing @Basic annotation still has a default fetch=EAGER element, >> I'd want to see a spec clarification. Clearly there is no TCK test >> possible for this... >> >> Craig >> >> On Jul 9, 2007, at 9:17 AM, Kevin Sutter wrote: >> >> > :-) The only reason why I would want to eagerly fetch LOBs is to >> > satisfy >> > the intent of the spec. Since the @Basic annotation is optional >> > and the >> > default fetchType is EAGER, then I assert that the spec indicates >> > that LOBs >> > need to be fetched EAGERly. Do you read the spec differently? >> > >> > I will agree that "in practice" LOBs should not be fetched >> > EAGERly. But, we >> > need to be consistent with the spec so as not to surprise customers >> > as they >> > move from one JPA implementation to another. >> > >> > Kevin >> > >> > On 7/9/07, Patrick Linskey <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Indeed you do... why would we want to eagerly fetch LOBs? I >> >> understand >> >> the logic if @Basic is specified, but not if it is omitted. >> >> >> >> -Patrick >> >> >> >> On 7/9/07, Kevin Sutter <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> > I have opened JIRA Issue 281 ( >> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-281) for this >> >> problem. It >> >> > seems that we have agreed that enums should be EAGER by >> >> default. I just >> >> > have to convince everybody that lobs also have to be EAGER, by >> >> default... >> >> > :-) >> >> > >> >> > Thanks, >> >> > Kevin >> >> > >> >> > On 7/8/07, Kevin Sutter <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > > Craig, >> >> > > Comments below... >> >> > > >> >> > > On 7/7/07, Craig L Russell <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Hi Kevin, >> >> > > > >> >> > > > If you can figure out what the spec (9.1.18 and 9.1.19) >> sez, my >> >> hat's >> >> > > > off to you. What a mudbake this is. >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > Isn't that just standard order of business with these >> specs? :-) >> >> > > >> >> > > Part of the issue is the annotation definition. If @Basic is >> >> > > > specified, and the user doesn't explicitly override the >> >> fetch type, >> >> > > > it appears to our annotation processor as if the user >> specified >> >> > > > EAGER. Even if @Basic is used with @Lob, if lazy is wanted, >> >> it has >> >> to >> >> > > > be explicitly stated. >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > That's how I read the spec. The first paragraph of 9.1.18 >> >> indicates >> >> that >> >> > > @Basic can be applied to any those types (enums and lob types >> >> included). >> >> > > The default fetchType is EAGER. It also states that @Basic is >> >> optional. >> >> > > So, the way I read this is that we should be doing EAGER >> >> fetching for >> >> all of >> >> > > those listed types unless explicitly told to do otherwise via >> >> the LAZY >> >> > > fetchType via an @Basic annotation. >> >> > > >> >> > > Maybe we should discuss @Lob in more detail. It isn't obvious >> >> to me >> >> > > > that @Basic can always be used and we might have an option >> >> to choose >> >> > > > a better default for the fetch behavior if @Basic >> annotation is >> >> omitted. >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > It seems to me that the spec is clear on the use and >> >> expectations of >> >> > > @Basic and the default fetchType of EAGER. Unless there are >> >> other >> >> spec >> >> > > references that contradict the statements in 9.1.18... >> >> > > >> >> > > Craig >> >> > > > >> >> > > > On Jul 6, 2007, at 11:37 AM, Kevin Sutter wrote: >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > I guess the spec is a bit clearer on this than I first >> >> thought. >> >> > > > > Section >> >> > > > > 9.1.8 of the JPA spec indicates that @Basic is optional >> and >> >> applies >> >> > > > > to the >> >> > > > > following types: >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > "..Java primitive types, wrappers of the primitive types, >> >> > > > > java.lang.String, >> >> > > > > java.math.BigInteger, >> >> > > > > java.math.BigDecimal, java.util.Date, java.util.Calendar, >> >> > > > > java.sql.Date, >> >> > > > > java.sql.Time, java.sql.Timestamp, byte[], Byte[], char[], >> >> Character >> >> > > > > [], >> >> > > > > enums, and any other type that implements Serializable." >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > And, since the default fetch type for @Basic is EAGER, it >> >> looks >> >> > > > > like we need >> >> > > > > to do eager fetching for both @Enumerated and @Lob fields >> >> unless >> >> > > > > otherwise >> >> > > > > overridden by a LAZY fetch type (ie. @Basic(fetch=LAZY)). >> >> Agree? >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > Kevin >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > On 7/6/07, Craig L Russell <[hidden email] > wrote: >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> On Jul 6, 2007, at 10:52 AM, Patrick Linskey wrote: >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> > The spec doesn't seem to discuss it, but I think that >> >> lazy is a >> >> > > > >> pretty >> >> > > > >> > good default behavior for @Lob field types -- typically >> >> @Lob >> >> things >> >> > > > >> > are big, so you often don't want them in the default >> fetch >> >> graph. >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> Enum is different, though. Enum should be eager >> fetching by >> >> default. >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> Lazy fetching is optional, so we can decide what we want >> >> to do. >> >> It >> >> > > > >> seems that the existence of @Basic should not change our >> >> strategy. >> >> > > > >> And we should default to lazy fetching for Lob and eager >> >> fetching >> >> for >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> Enum. >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> Craig >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > -Patrick >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > On 7/6/07, Kevin Sutter <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> > > > >> >> I am finding that the supposed default action of Eager >> >> fetching is >> >> > > > >> >> not >> >> > > > >> >> happening with @Enumerated and @Lob fields. If I >> >> explicitly >> >> > > > >> >> specify the >> >> > > > >> >> @Basic annotation, then the fields are eagerly >> >> fetched. But, >> >> > > > >> >> without this >> >> > > > >> >> extraneous @Basic, these fields are lazily loaded. >> This >> >> action >> >> > > > >> >> does not >> >> > > > >> >> seem to be consistent with the spec. Nor, can I >> find any >> >> mention >> >> > > > >> >> of this >> >> > > > >> >> alternate behavior in our OpenJPA manual. Sounds like >> >> a bug >> >> to >> >> > > > >> >> me. Any >> >> > > > >> >> other insights? >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> This works (eager loading kicks in): >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> @Basic @Enumerated(EnumType.STRING) >> >> > > > >> >> private Gender gender; >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> This does not work (lazy loading kicks in): >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> @Enumerated(EnumType.STRING) >> >> > > > >> >> private Gender gender; >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> I have also tried to use defaults (without any >> >> annotations), >> >> > > > >> and lazy >> >> > > > >> >> loading still kicks in: >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> private Gender gender; >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> Thanks, >> >> > > > >> >> Kevin >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > -- >> >> > > > >> > Patrick Linskey >> >> > > > >> > 202 669 5907 >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> Craig Russell >> >> > > > >> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System >> >> http://java.sun.com/products/ >> >> > > > >> jdo >> >> > > > >> 408 276-5638 mailto: [hidden email] >> >> > > > >> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Craig Russell >> >> > > > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System >> >> http://java.sun.com/products/jdo >> >> > > > 408 276-5638 mailto:[hidden email] >> >> > > > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Patrick Linskey >> >> 202 669 5907 >> >> >> >> Craig Russell >> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/ >> jdo >> 408 276-5638 mailto:[hidden email] >> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! >> >> >> > > > -- > Patrick Linskey > 202 669 5907 Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[hidden email] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
| Free Embeddable Forum Powered by Nabble | Help |
