Null vs empty collections in Hibernate

Question

Say I have the following Hibernate-mapped class:

public class ClassA {       
   @OneToMany(fetch=EAGER)
   private List<ClassB> bList;
}

When I read an object of ClassA from a Hibernate session, the bList field is initialized with a PersistentList object, as expected.

I find myself with a requirement where in situations where the list is empty, I need Hibernate to initialize the bList field to null, rather than with an empty PersistentList. In theory, Hibernate has the information it needs to do this, since the fetch on the list is eager. The problem is that according to section 6.1 of the Hibernate docs:

Collection-valued properties do not support null value semantics because Hibernate does not distinguish between a null collection reference and an empty collection.

This makes perfect sense, but I'm hoping someone can come up with a cunning ruse to overcome this limitation. I'm thinking perhaps some listener/callback mechanism might allow me to replace empty lists with null references.

amischiefr · Accepted Answer · 2009-09-21 14:51:17Z

12

Have you tried to check in the getbList() method? You could do:

if(bList.isEmpty()) 
    return null;
return bList;

Hibernate will always create an object for your references, but you are allowed to control the data inside of the getter and setters. If the list has 0 elements you can always return null.

edited Sep 21, 2009 at 14:51

answered Sep 21, 2009 at 14:41

amischiefr

4,8802 gold badges31 silver badges22 bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

1 Comment

skaffman Over a year ago

I think this may end up being the simplest solution, yes

matt b · Accepted Answer · 2009-09-21 14:54:00Z

2

I'm curious why you consider this a "limitation' - does a null bList actually have a different meaning to your application than an empty bList?

I think that in most areas, a null collection and an empty collection have the same semantic meaning, which I would guess is why the Hibernate developers sought to limit Hibernate to only using one. Doesn't make much sense to always check if (bList == null || bList.isEmpty) if the two always end up meaning the same thing.

answered Sep 21, 2009 at 14:54

matt b

140k66 gold badges287 silver badges352 bronze badges

1 Comment

skaffman Over a year ago

It most situations, you'd be correct, but the clients of this particular object model distinguish between null and empty, and I have no control over that.

Damo · Accepted Answer · 2009-09-21 14:55:28Z

2

For handling in your code the obvious way is in the getter, however that doesn't help you if you want to evaluate it in HQL.

Two ideas:

A constructor that sets it to NULL if empty.
A @PostLoad / @PostConstruct method that does the same.

answered Sep 21, 2009 at 14:55

Damo

11.6k6 gold badges59 silver badges75 bronze badges

1 Comment

skaffman Over a year ago

Ah, I wasn't aware of @PostLoad, I'm liking that. How does it interact with @PostConstruct?

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

Null vs empty collections in Hibernate

3 Answers 3

1 Comment

1 Comment

1 Comment

Your Answer

Linked

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

3 Answers 3

1 Comment

1 Comment

1 Comment

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Linked

Related