JVM Advent

The JVM Programming Advent Calendar

How jOOQ Leverages Generic Type Safety in its DSL

In this year’s Java Advent Calendar, we’re thrilled to have been asked to feature a mini-series showing you a couple of advanced and very interesting topics that we’ve been working on when developing jOOQ.

The series consists of:

Don’t miss any of these!

How jOOQ leverages generic type safety in its DSL

Few Java developers are aware of this, but SQL is a very type safe language. In the Java ecosystem, if you’re using JDBC, you’re operating on dynamically constructed SQL strings, which are sent to the server for execution – or failure. Some IDEs may have started to be capable of introspecting parts of your static SQL, but often you’re concatenating predicates to form a very dynamic query:

String sql = "SELECT a, b, c FROM table WHERE 1 = 1";

if (someCondition)
sql += " AND id = 3";

if (someOtherCondition)
sql += " AND value = 42";

These concatenations quickly turn nasty and are one of the reasons why Java developers don’t really like SQL

SQL as written via JDBC. Image (c) by Greg Grossmeier. License CC-BY-SA 2.0

But interestingly, PL/SQL or T-SQL developers never complain about SQL in this way. In fact, they feel quite the opposite. Look at how SQL is nicely embedded in a typical PL/SQL block:


-- The record type of "rec" is inferred by the compiler
FOR rec IN (

-- This compiles only when I have matching
-- degrees and types of both UNION subselects!
SELECT first_name, last_name FROM customers
SELECT first_name, last_name FROM staff

-- This compiles only if rec really has
-- first_name and last_name columns
INSERT INTO people (first_name, last_name)

-- Obviously, VALUES must match the above target table
VALUES (rec.first_name, rec.last_name);

Now, we can most certainly discuss syntax. Whether you like SQL’s COBOLesque syntax or not is a matter of taste and a matter of habit, too. But one thing is clear, SQL is absolutely type safe, and most sane people would consider that a very good thing. Read The Inconvenient Truth About Dynamic vs. Static Typing for more details.

The same can be achieved in Java!

JDBC’s lack of type safety is a brilliant feature for the low-level API that JDBC is. At some point, we need an API that can simply send SQL strings over the wire without knowing anything about the wire protocol, and retrieve back cursors of arbitrary / unknown type. However, if we don’t execute our SQL directly via JDBC, but maintain a type safe SQL AST (Abstract Syntax Tree) prior to query execution, then we might actually anticipate the returned type of our statements.

jOOQ’s DSL API (Domain-specific language) works exactly like that. When you create SQL statements with jOOQ, you’re implicitly creating an AST both for your Java compiler, but also for your runtime environment. Here’s how that works:


If we look closely at what the above query really does, we’ll see that we’re calling one of several overloaded select() methods on jOOQ’s DSLContext class, namely DSLContext.select(Field, Field), the one that takes two argument columns.

The whole API looks like this, and we’ll see immediately after why this is so useful:

<T1> SelectSelectStep<Record1<T1>> 
select(Field<T1> field1);
<T1, T2> SelectSelectStep<Record2<T1, T2>>
select(Field<T1> field1, Field<T2> field2);
<T1, T2, T3> SelectSelectStep<Record3<T1, T2, T3>>
select(Field<T1> field1, Field<T2> field2, Field<T3> field3);
// and so on...

So, by explicitly passing two columns to the select() method, you have chosen the second one of the above methods that returns a DSL type that is parameterised with Record2, or more specifically, with Record2<String, String>. Yes, the String parameter bindings are inferred from the very columns that we passed to the select() call, because jOOQ’s code generator reverse-engineers your database schema and generates those classes for you.

The generated Customers class really looks like this (simplified):

// All table references are listed here:
class Tables {
Customers CUSTOMERS = new Customers();
Staff STAFF = new Staff();

// All tables have an individual class each, with columns inside:
class Customers {
final Field<String> FIRST_NAME = ...
final Field<String> LAST_NAME = ...

As you can see, all type information is already available to you, automatically, as you have defined those types only once in the database. No need to define them again in Java.

Generic type information is ubiquitous

The interesting part is the UNION. The union() method on the DSL API simply looks like this:

public interface SelectUnionStep<R extends Record> {
SelectOrderByStep<R> union(Select<? extends R> select);

If we go back to our statement, we can see that the type of the object upon which we call union() is really this type:

SelectUnionStep<Record2<String, String>>

… thus, the method union() that we’re calling is really expecting an argument of this type:

union(Select<? extends Record2<String, String>> select);

… which essentially means that we’ll get a compilation error if we don’t provide two string columns also in the second subselect:

// ^^^^^ doesn't compile, wrong argument type!

or also:

// ^^^^^ doesn't compile, wrong argument type!

Static type checking helps finding bugs early

… indeed! All of the above bugs can be found at compile-time because your Java compiler will not accept the wrong SQL statements. When writing dynamic SQL, this can be incredibly subtle, as the different UNION subselects may not be created all at the same place. You may have a complex DAO that generates the SQL across several methods. With this kind of generic type safety, you can continue to do so, safely.

As mentioned before, this extends through the whole API. Check out…

IN predicates

This compiles:

// Get all customers whose first name corresponds to a staff first name

This doesn’t compile:

// ^^ wrong argument type!

But this compiles:

// Get all customers whose first and last names both correspond
// to a staff first and last names

Notice the use of row() to construct a row value expression, an extremely useful but little known SQL feature.

INSERT statements

This compiles:

.values("John", "Doe")

This doesn’t compile:

// ^^^^^^ Invalid number of arguments


Internal domain-specific languages can express a lot of type safety in Java, almost as much as the external language really implements. In the case of SQL – which is a very type safe language – this is particularly true and interesting.

jOOQ has been designed to create as little cognitive friction as possible for any Java developer who wants to write embedded SQL in Java, i.e. the Java code will look and feel exactly like the SQL code that it represents. At the same time, jOOQ has been designed to offer as much compile-time type safety as possible in the Java language (or also in Scala, Groovy, etc.).

jOOQ is free and Open Source for use with Open Source databases, and it offers commercial licensing for use with commercial databases.

For more information about jOOQ or jOOQ’s DSL API, consider these resources:

Stay tuned for tomorrow’s article “How jOOQ allows for fluent functional-relational interactions in Java 8”
This post is part of the Java Advent Calendar and is licensed under the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution license. If you like it, please spread the word by sharing, tweeting, FB, G+ and so on!

Author: Lukas Eder

Founder and CEO at Data Geekery, the company behind jOOQ

Next Post

Previous Post


  1. Tomáš Záluský December 17, 2014

    Thanks for good article, I like utilizing generics tricks for ensuring type safety.

    One small question: Isn't enforcing java type safety sometimes too strict, compared to PLSQL?
    For example: universum of CUSTOMER.IDs and STAFF.IDs may overlap. Or another example: table T may be joined with view V which is defined upon table T plus some specific table in order to fetch more specific data. T.ID and V.ID means substantially same identity in SQL but different generic argument of Field<> in Java. What's the solution for such a situation – some kind of adaptation of Field to Field?

    Anyway I am looking forward to your next Java advent article.

  2. Tomáš Záluský December 17, 2014

    sorry for mistake

  3. Lukas Eder December 23, 2014

    Sorry for the delay, I didn't get a notification, unfortunately.

    I'm not sure what you mean by overlapping universa of CUSTOMER.ID and STAFF.ID. How would less generic type safety help here?

    If T.ID and V.ID are generated to be of different type (e.g. Integer and Long), then you can either use the cast() or the coerce() function to shorten / widen the types.

    Note that the different SQL dialects are usually not behaving in the same way when it comes to automatic conversion of data types. To stay on the safe side, you should assume that all types are fundamentally uncomparable. This is often true for UNIONs, less often for comparison predicates.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

© 2024 JVM Advent | Powered by Jetbrains LogoJetBrains & steinhauer.software Logosteinhauer.software

Theme by Anders Norén

Cookie Consent with Real Cookie Banner