In the applications I'm developing I need to store data for Customer,Products and their Prices. In order to persist that data I use RMS, but knowing that RMS doesn't support object serializing directly and since that data I read already comes in json format, I store every JSONObject as its string version, like this:
rs = RecordStore.openRecordStore(mRecordStoreName, true);
JSONArray jsArray = new JSONArray(data);
for (int i = 0; i < jsArray.length(); i++) {
JSONObject jsObj = jsArray.getJSONObject(i);
stringJSON = jsObj.toString();
addRecord(stringJSON, rs);
}
The addRecord Method
public int addRecord(String stringJSON, RecordStore rs) throws JSONException,RecordStoreException {
int id = -1;
byte[] raw = stringJSON.getBytes();
id= rs.addRecord(raw, 0, raw.length);
return id;
}
So I have three RecordStores (Customer,Products and their Prices) and for each of them I do the save as shown above to save their corresponding data.
I know this might be a possible to solution, but I'm sure there's gotta be a better implementation. Even more,considering that over those three "tables" I'm going to perform searching, sorting,etc.
In those cases, having to deserialize before proceeding to search or sort doesn't seem a very good idea.
That's why I want to ask you guys. In your experience, how do store custom objects in RMS in way that is easy to work with them later??
I really appreciate all your comments and suggestions.
It seems that it's easier to work with records when you define a fixed max length for each field. So here's what I tried:
1) First all, this is the class I use to retrieve the values from the record store:
public class Customer {
public int idCust;
public String name;
public String IDNumber;
public String address;
}
2) This is the code I use to save every jsonObject to the record store:
RecordStore rs = null;
try {
rs = RecordStore.openRecordStore(mRecordStoreName, true);
JSONArray js = new JSONArray(data);
for (int i = 0; i < js.length(); i++) {
JSONObject jsObj = js.getJSONObject(i);
byte[] record = packRecord(jsObj);
rs.addRecord(record, 0, record.length);
}
} finally {
if (rs != null) {
rs.closeRecordStore();
}
}
The packRecord method :
private byte[] packRecord(JSONObject jsonObj) throws IOException, JSONException {
ByteArrayOutputStream raw = new ByteArrayOutputStream();
DataOutputStream out = new DataOutputStream(raw);
out.writeInt(jsonObj.getInt("idCust"));
out.writeUTF(jsonObj.getString("name"));
out.writeUTF(jsonObj.getString("IDNumber"));
out.writeUTF(jsonObj.getString("address"));
return raw.toByteArray();
}
3) This is how I pull all the records from the record store :
RecordStore rs = null;
RecordEnumeration re = null;
try {
rs = RecordStore.openRecordStore(mRecordStoreName, true);
re = rs.enumerateRecords(null, null, false);
while (re.hasNextElement()) {
Customer c;
int idRecord = re.nextRecordId();
byte[] record = rs.getRecord(idRecord);
c = parseRecord(record);
//Do something with the parsed object (Customer)
}
} finally {
if (re != null) {
re.destroy();
}
if (rs != null) {
rs.closeRecordStore();
}
}
The parseRecord Method :
private Customer parseRecord(byte[] record) throws IOException {
Customer cust = new Customer();
ByteArrayInputStream raw = new ByteArrayInputStream(record);
DataInputStream in = new DataInputStream(raw);
cust.idCust = in.readInt();
cust.name = in.readUTF();
cust.IDNumber = in.readUTF();
cust.address = in.readUTF();
return cust;
}
This is how I implemented what Mister Smith suggested(hope it's what he had in mind). However, I'm still not very sure about how to implement the searchs.
I almost forget to mention that before I made theses changes to my code, the size of my RecordStore was 229048 bytes, now it is only 158872 bytes :)
RMS is nothing of the sort of a database. You have to think of it as a record set, where each record is a byte array.
Because of this, it is easier to work with it when you define a fixed max length for each field in the record. For instance, a record could be some info about a player in a game (max level reached, score, player name, etc). You could define the level field as 4 bytes long (int), then a score field of 8 bytes (a long), then the name as a 100 bytes field (string). This is tricky because strings usually will be of variable length, but you would probably like to have a fixed max length for this field, and if some string is shorter than that, you'd use a string terminator char to delimite it. (This example is actually bad because the string is the last field, so it would have been easier to keep it variable length. Just imagine you have several consecutive fields of type string.)
To help you with serialization/deserialization, you can use DataOutputstream and DataInputStream. With these classes you can read/write strings in UTF and they will insert the string delimiters for you. But this means that when you need a field, as you don't know exactly where it is located, you'll have to read the array up to that position first.
The advantage of fixed lengths is that you could later use a RecordFilter and if you wanted to retrieve recors of players that have reached a score greater than 10000, you can look at the "points" field in exactly the same position (an offset of 4 bytes from the start of the byte array).
So it's a tradeoff. Fixed lengths means faster access to fields (faster searches), but potential waste of space. Variable lengths means minimum storage space but slower searches. What is best for your case will depend on the number of records and the kind of searches you need.
You have a good collection of tutorials in the net. Just to name a few:
http://developer.samsung.com/java/technical-docs/Java-ME-Record-Management-System
http://developer.nokia.com/community/wiki/Persistent_Data_in_Java_ME