3

I am writing a web service in Java which reads some information from a DB and generates multiple JSON files which are written to S3. For each type of file, I have a POJO which is serialized to JSON using jackson.

The schema of the files can change over time - new fields can be added, existing fields can be removed etc. Any change in schema will require a new version of the file to be created. Therefore at any point in time, there might be multiple versions of a file in S3.

The current architecture is pretty simple - There is a Controller class which calls a couple of classes to get data from DB. After that it passes that data to a FileGenerator class which creates multiple POJOs and writes them to S3 through a Repository class.

I need to change this design to make it more modular and handle multiple versions of files.

Till now this is what I have come up with:

  • A generator class for generating each type of file (or POJO) (File1Generator, File2Generator etc)

  • A FileManager class for each type of file , which calls the generator and serializes the POJO and then writes it to the data-store. (File1Manager, File2Manager etc)

  • The Controller class will now all the File managers one by one.

However, I am not sure how to design the system in a way that multiple versions of the files can be handled. For the POJOs, I have to have a separate POJO for each version - File1POJO_V1, File1POJO_V2. But then I will also have additional generators and additional managers. The information passed to generators might vary from one version to another. Same with managers. I am struggling to create a nice class hierarchy such that the code is easily extensible. Following is a skeleton of the code as I have thought:

class File1POJOV1{
 private String prop1;
 private String prop1;
 ..........
 public setProp1(){}
 public setProp2(){}
}

class File1Generator_V1{
  public File1POJOV1 createFile(String prop1, String prop2 ...){
        //Perform manipulations and create File1POJO_V1
  }
}

class File1Manager_V1{
  private File1Generator_V1 fileGenerator;
  private Serializer serializer; //JSON serializer
  public void createFile(String prop1, String prop2,.., String directory){
      File1POJOV1 file = fileGenerator.createFile(prop1, prop2 ...);
      byte[] data = serializer.serialzer(data); 
      String path  = generateFilePath(); //dynamic based on properties
      writeToS3(data, path, directory); //write data to S3 bucket
  }
}


class Controller{
   File1Manager_V1 manager1_V1;
   File2Manager_V1 manager2_V1;
   generateFile(String prop1, prop1..., directory){
      manager1.createFile(prop1, prop2..,directory);
      manager2.createFile(prop3, prop4.. directory) 
   } 
}

The problem is that when there is new version of a file, there will be a separate POJO for that which will have more(or less) fields than the previous version. This change will be propagated to the Generators and Managers as the input parameters to the methods will change. I am not able to figure out, how to have an elegant design for this system which makes maintenance easy.

EDIT: I have got some good suggestions for not removing fields in successive versions of a file. But my question remains: assuming that I don't remove fields and that each new version is a subclass of the older one, I will still have to write a separate generator and a manager for each subclass. Can this be avoided ? What would be a better design ?

  • I had a bit of difficulty following your current architecture. Could you perhaps show some form of diagram or describe a bit more clearly how your code currently works? I think I understand some aspects of it, but other important parts - like how the generators are parametrized, what parts of versioning are already plumbed in, etc - could perhaps use a bit more clarity. – J Trana Oct 19 '15 at 4:03
  • I have added skeleton code for clarity. Thanks for responding. – vjain27 Oct 19 '15 at 4:51
  • 1
    You might want to look into the strategy pattern. – TMN Oct 19 '15 at 16:46
  • I'm trying to figure out your architecture and my best advice is remember to separate what's different from what stays the same. Take a look at what changes you're applying to your POJOs and maybe you need to abstract the amount and types of parameters you're passing into your generators. – Luminous Oct 21 '15 at 19:31
  • You are using JSON and a web service. There is no reason you can't just add json obects as needed and append versioning info etc... via a GET request to the URI host/file.ext?v=1&param=value&... or use JSON for passing parameters in a POST. You haven't stated why new files are needed. If you just append new json objects in v2, then v1 can still use the same file and v2 can use default values for any new objects when it needs to read a v1 file. – technosaurus Oct 22 '15 at 2:50
0

I think the answer will depend on what you are trying to achieve other than writing files.

Lets leave out the POJOs for the moment, you read data from a DB and write it out to a specific file format via your fileManger class. The DB read returns some generic data reader type, so as long as the needed columns exist you are fine.

If you want to write the same DB data in a different format, you can create another fileMangerV2 class and you are good to go.

If you want to add fields to the DB, again you are fine.

If you remove fields, then things break and you have a backwards compatibility issue you just can't get around if you go ahead and delete that data.

So really this is about the underlying data. If that is the same across all your file versions then you just need the one POJO which matches that data structure and one fileManager per file Format to handle the reading and writing to that format

However, if you want to expose the file format to code with a matching POJO and the underlying data struct is the same, you can create new classes which either inherit (if you don't mind exposing all the base class properties), or wrap the base POJO

Converting from one POJO to the other is then relatively straight forward, just expose the underlying base class, and this code can be included in the object itself rather than the fileManager. This will enable you to have a single fileManager class which is able to output any file format, either by reflection, or better, by having all the POJOs implement a common interface ICanBeWrittenToAFile which exposes GetFieldsForWritingToFile() or something similar.

Your Controllers and fileManager can then take an ICanBeWrittenToAFile as input rather than a specific POJO and you only need to inject the one fileManager

Now say you have some business logic X which you want to be able to perform on the data regardless of the file version. You can extend the same concept by having the POJOs implement ICanPerformLogicX etc

5
+25

Keep the need for versioning low

I assume here that the JSON files are generated for someone other component/service/client to consume. So try not removing fields. If you only add new fields, then there is no need to create a new version, so long as consumers of the JSON files ignore fields they don't know.

An interface where consumers ignore features they don't know about is more robust. Imagine for example if I consume your data at V0 and then for a year you add new fields on a biweekly basis, arriving at V26 after a year. Then in V27 you add a field that I want to consume also. Should I be bothered by updating my code to handle the fields added between V1 through V26 even though I don't use them? I don't think so.

Removing fields on the other hand is a different beast. You should do that rarely, and in bulk. The whole idea of major and minor versions in semantic versioning is about that. If you add something, it is a minor version and it should not affect users, if you remove things, it is a major update, that can break dependent code.

This also coincides with the notion of subtypes, polymorphism and substitutability. Essentially, to add a new field to a FirstPOJO, you could modify it, or you could subclass it to SubPOJO, that extends FirstPOJO by adding someField. Code written against FirstPOJO will be able to handle SubPOJO transparently. Of course if you start removing things, then code can break.

I know this doesn't exactly answer your question. But your basic problem is that you have a code architecture, that doesn't scale. Reducing the need to scale in the first place, does circumvent the problem.

  • Thanks for the advice. I will definitely keep that in mind and will avoid removing things. However, my problem remains. Even if I only add new fields, won't I have to write a separate generator and manager for each SubPOJO, unless I write some conditional logic based on type checking (if X instance of POJO else if X instance of SubPOJO) ? – vjain27 Oct 22 '15 at 13:13

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.