To understand the behaviour of various Java language-level objects with respect to the persistence service, we need to classify them into two groups:

An entity exists independently of any other objects holding references to the entity. Contrast this with the usual Java model where an unreferenced object is garbage collected. Entities must be explicitly saved and deleted (except that saves and deletions may be cascaded from a parent entity to its children). This is different from the ODMG model of object persistence by reachablity - and corresponds more closely to how application objects are usually used in large systems. Entities support circular and shared references. They may also be versioned.

An entity's persistent state consists of references to other entities and instances of value types. Values are primitives, collections (not what's inside a collection), components and certain immutable objects. Unlike entities, values (in particular collections and components) are persisted and deleted by reachability. Since value objects (and primitives) are persisted and deleted along with their containing entity they may not be independently versioned. Values have no independent identity, so they cannot be shared by two entities or collections.

Up until now, we've been using the term "persistent class" to refer to entities. We will continue to do that. Strictly speaking, however, not all user-defined classes with persistent state are entities. A component is a user defined class with value semantics. A Java property of type java.lang.String also has value semantics. Given this definition, we can say that all types (classes) provided by the JDK have value type semantics in Java, while user-defined types may be mapped with entity or value type semantics. This decision is up to the application developer. A good hint for an entity class in a domain model are shared references to a single instance of that class, while composition or aggregation usually translates to a value type.

We'll revisit both concepts throughout the documentation.

The challenge is to map the Java type system (and the developers' definition of entities and value types) to the SQL/database type system. The bridge between both systems is provided by Hibernate: for entities we use <class>, <subclass> and so on. For value types we use <property>, <component>, etc, usually with a type attribute. The value of this attribute is the name of a Hibernate mapping type. Hibernate provides many mappings (for standard JDK value types) out of the box. You can write your own mapping types and implement your custom conversion strategies as well, as you'll see later.

All built-in Hibernate types except collections support null semantics.

The built-in basic mapping types may be roughly categorized into

Unique identifiers of entities and collections may be of any basic type except binary, blob and clob. (Composite identifiers are also allowed, see below.)

The basic value types have corresponding Type constants defined on org.hibernate.Hibernate. For example, Hibernate.STRING represents the string type.

It is relatively easy for developers to create their own value types. For example, you might want to persist properties of type java.lang.BigInteger to VARCHAR columns. Hibernate does not provide a built-in type for this. But custom types are not limited to mapping a property (or collection element) to a single table column. So, for example, you might have a Java property getName()/setName() of type java.lang.String that is persisted to the columns FIRST_NAME, INITIAL, SURNAME.

To implement a custom type, implement either org.hibernate.UserType or org.hibernate.CompositeUserType and declare properties using the fully qualified classname of the type. Check out org.hibernate.test.DoubleStringType to see the kind of things that are possible.

<property name="twoStrings" type="org.hibernate.test.DoubleStringType">
    <column name="first_string"/>
    <column name="second_string"/>
</property>

Notice the use of <column> tags to map a property to multiple columns.

The CompositeUserType, EnhancedUserType, UserCollectionType, and UserVersionType interfaces provide support for more specialized uses.

You may even supply parameters to a UserType in the mapping file. To do this, your UserType must implement the org.hibernate.usertype.ParameterizedType interface. To supply parameters to your custom type, you can use the <type> element in your mapping files.

<property name="priority">
    <type name="com.mycompany.usertypes.DefaultValueIntegerType">
        <param name="default">0</param>
    </type>
</property>

The UserType can now retrieve the value for the parameter named default from the Properties object passed to it.

If you use a certain UserType very often, it may be useful to define a shorter name for it. You can do this using the <typedef> element. Typedefs assign a name to a custom type, and may also contain a list of default parameter values if the type is parameterized.

<typedef class="com.mycompany.usertypes.DefaultValueIntegerType" name="default_zero">
    <param name="default">0</param>
</typedef>

<property name="priority" type="default_zero"/>

It is also possible to override the parameters supplied in a typedef on a case-by-case basis by using type parameters on the property mapping.

Even though Hibernate's rich range of built-in types and support for components means you will very rarely need to use a custom type, it is nevertheless considered good form to use custom types for (non-entity) classes that occur frequently in your application. For example, a MonetaryAmount class is a good candidate for a CompositeUserType, even though it could easily be mapped as a component. One motivation for this is abstraction. With a custom type, your mapping documents would be future-proofed against possible changes in your way of representing monetary values.