Sometimes i use jsonschema2pojo to convert some json into a java object, but according with these definitions I always be confused if it is a VO or a DTO. Im sure that isnt an entity, but I dont know how to classify it correctly.
The purpose of the use, is just to get a json in an object. After that, i manipulate these data over the app.
Technically, it's a DTO until you add additional business logic into the class rather than simply the JSON serialization annotations.
The reason I say so is that it's responsible for both transfer and deserialization of a JSON object
I would say that a DTO is a POJO that is setup for the exclusive purpose of being transmitted to and from a datasource. So I would say that if you plan on using the POJO just for transmitting to and from a datasource, then I would call it a DTO. That would let me know what its purpose is for. If the POJO is going to be used for other things beyond just transmitting to and from a datasource, than I would call it a POJO.
Typically I do not see these terms used much anymore. Now I just see POJO and they typically go into a package with the name "model" or "domain". If I see these packages in a project, I know these are POJO's that can be used for business logic or transmitting.
Why its probably not a VO: VO's are small objects, like coordinates, or money. They are immutable and do not contain many fields. So not really something with multiple fields that you would require JSONshema2pojo. Though when parsing a large JSON, JSONschema2pojo might create many little classes that fit this definition.
EDIT: This is all subjective. And only providing an opinion here.
Related
I have a use case where I have one dto class that has all the data retrieved from a db call. I need to create different json formats using information from that class.
What is the best way to do this?.Also is there a way to do this with out making a code change everytime a new json format is needed ,something like storing the different json schemas in a persistence layer and then
do the mapping dynamically ?
I provide below my simple thoughts. Suppose you have a dto class say EmpDto which has data in relation to your database table model. If you want to create a json in way different way, then you create a separate object model like EmpJsonBean and annotate the Json annotations from Jackson framework. You have to populate the EmpJsonBean by taking required data from the EmpDto class. This way you can do it.
If you think of a design pattern so that you can have minimal impact, I would suggest for Adapter design pattern so that you can have a different json structure based upon the business need.
I (think I) just understood the differences between Java Entity, VO, POJO, Javabeans, DAO, DTO, etc, I mean, the theory. Now, I'm trying to understand the implications of the implementations depending on the needs. Who cares if I create a POJO or a JavaBean? At the beginning I will create a POJO if I have no other constraint, until I realise I must make it a Javabean and deal with it's restrictions.
When do you tell yourself: "I need a DTO"? Only for web services or when any client/server call is made? In that case, do you put all the data you need (and the one you think you will need?) in one DTO bunch?
Lastly, in a MVC model, where does each one go? Can I make an entity or a vo in either layer? Where does the DTO go?
Thank you very much
You understood the difference between them, now you need to understand their purpose.
There is a neat definition for each one in this link.
Who cares if I create a POJO or a JavaBean? At the beginning I will create a POJO if I have no other constraint, until I realise I must make it a Javabean and deal with it's restrictions.
You need to think what the purpose of the class is. Is it a standalone class with no annotations that provides functionality but can be isolated (not counting libraries used)? Then it is likely a POJO.
Is it a class that serves as a bridge between layers of your project? Is it annotated? Does it implement some business logic for your project? Then it is a JavaBean.
When do you tell yourself: "I need a DTO"? Only for web services or when any client/server call is made? In that case, do you put all the data you need (and the one you think you will need?) in one DTO bunch?
DTOs are generally used to share information between layers. Their main purpose is isolating Entities so that you can change how your information is persisted from how the information flows through the different beans and controllers in your project.
To know when I need a DTO and when not I follow these rules:
Does the method more than three parameters? Then use a DTO.
Does the method return more than a single parameter? Then use a DTO.
When passing parameters to method calls / from method results: Does each element have more than one type (for Maps you would look at the value)? Then use a Collection of DTOs.
Otherwise use String, int, Long, etc.
Also never mind reusing DTOs even if most of its fields are not used for a specific method, you won't be wasting much memory if it's properly design. On the other hand, don't worry if you need to create new DTOs that share fields with some others, it might be clearer when reviewing your code. Try to find the right balance between too many DTOs and overpopulated DTOs.
Lastly, in a MVC model, where does each one go? Can I make an entity or a vo in either layer? Where does the DTO go?
It depends on how you structure your project. The term layer is a bit open as it can refer to each of the MVC elements and to the Data/Business/Client architecture (when I used the word layer in this answer, I'm talking about the later classification).
It is a good practice to separate each layer in a different project (specially in large projects). This is a common structure I use for enterprise web applications:
ProjectNameDao: Includes database access methods and entities.
ProjectNameBo: Includes all the business logic. Shares information with the other layers by using DTOs. It is, along ProjectNameDao, the Model in a MVC model.
ProjectNameWeb: Includes views and controllers from the MVC model.
ProjectNameDto: Includes all DTOs.
ProjectNameUtils: Shared utils, normally POJOs that hold constant values or provide basic functionality like Date formatting.
This structure needs to be adapted to whatever your requirements are, of course.
I have had similar questions and concerns as to how to convert between Hibernate entities and data transfer objects to be returned by a web service as are discussed in this question:
Is using data transfer objects in ejb3 considered best practice
One of the factors mentioned here is that if the domain model changes, a set of DTOs will protect consumers in the case of a web service.
Even though it seems like it will add a substantial amount of code to my project, this reasoning seems sound.
Is there a good design pattern that I can use to convert a Hibernate entity (which implements an interface) to a DTO that implements the same interface?
So assuming both of the following implement 'Book', I would need to convert a BookEntity.class to a BookDTO.class so that I can let JAXB serialize and return.
Again, this whole prospect seems dubious to me, but if there are good patterns out there for helping to deal with this conversion, I would love to get some insight.
Is there perhaps some interesting way to convert via reflection? Or a 'builder' pattern that I'm not thinking of?
Should I just ignore the DTO pattern and pass entities around?
Should I just ignore the DTO pattern
and pass entities around?
My preference is usually "yes". I don't like the idea of parallel hierarchies created just for the sake of architectural or layer purity.
The original reason for the DTO pattern was excessive chattiness in EJB 1.0 and 2.0 apps when passing entity EJBs to the view tier. The solution was to put the entity bean state into a DTO.
Another reason that's usually given for creating DTOs is to prohibit modification by the view layer. DTOs are immutable objects in that case, with no behavior. They do nothing but ferry data to the view layer.
I would argue that DTO is a Core J2EE pattern that's become an anti-pattern.
I realize that some people would disagree. I'm simply offering my opinion. It's not the only way to do it, nor necessarily the "right" way. It's my preference.
There needs to be a contrarian view amongst all the jolly kicking of the DTO.
tl;dr - It is sometimes still useful.
The advantage of the DTO is that you don't have to add a zillion annotations to your domain classes.
You start with #Entity. Not so bad. But then you need JAXB so you add #XMLElement etc - and then you need JSON so you add things like #JsonManagedReference for Jackson to do the right thing with relationships then you add etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum.
Pretty soon your POJO ain't so plain any more. Read about "domain driven design" sometime.
In addition you can "filter" some properties that you don't want the view to know about.
We should not forget that entity objects are not easy to handle when they are in managed state. This makes their passing to GUI forms problematic. To be more precise, child objects are handled eagerly. This cannot be done out of session, cousing exceptions. So, they either have to be evicted (detached) from the entity manager of they have to be converted to appropriate DTOs. Unless of cource there is a pattern, which I am not aware of, that I would be very glad to know.
For quickly create a "look-alike" DTO, without a bunch of duplicate get/set code, you can use BeanUtils.copyProperties. That function help you quickly copy the data from DAO to DTO class. Just remember that there are more than one common libraries support BeanUtils.copyProperties, but their syntax are not the same.
I know this is an old question, but thought I would add an answer offering a framework to help in case someone else is tackling this problem.
Our project has JAXB annotated POJOs that are separate from the JPA annotated POJOs. Our team was debating how best to move data between the two objects (actually data structures).
Here is an option for people to consider:
We found and are experimenting with Dozer which handles (1) same name, (2) XML mapping and (3) custom conversions as ways to copy data between two POJOs.
It has been very easy to use so far.
In my Spring MVC application I am using DTO in the presentation layer in order to encapsulate the domain model in the service layer. The DTO's are being used as the spring form backing objects.
hence my services look something like this:
userService.storeUser(NewUserRequestDTO req);
The service layer will translate DTO -> Domain object and do the rest of the work.
Now my problem is that when I want to retrieve a DTO from the service to perform say an Update or Display I can't seem to find a better way to do it then to have multiple methods for the lookup that return different DTO's like...
EditUserRequestDTO userService.loadUserForEdit(int id);
DisplayUserDTO userService.loadUserForDisplay(int id);
but something does not feel right about this approach. Perhaps the service should not return things like EditUserRequestDTO and the controller should be responsible of assembling a requestDTO from a dedicated form object and vice versa.
The reason do have separate DTO's is that DisplayUserDTO is strongly typed to be read only and also there are many properties of user that are entities from a lookup table in the db (like city and state) so the DisplayUserDTO would have the string description of the properties while the EditUserRequestDTO will have the id's that will back the select drop down lists in the forms.
What do you think?
thanks
I like the stripped down display objects. It's more efficient than building the whole domain object just to display a few fields of it. I have used a similar pattern with one difference. Instead of using an edit version of a DTO, I just used the domain object in the view. It significantly reduced the work of copying data back and forth between objects. I haven't decided if I want to do that now, since I'm using the annotations for JPA and the Bean Validation Framework and mixing the annotations looks messy. But I'm not fond of using DTOs for the sole purpose of keeping domain objects out of the MVC layer. It seems like a lot of work for not much benefit. Also, it might be useful to read Fowler's take on anemic objects. It may not apply exactly, but it's worth thinking about.
1st Edit: reply to below comment.
Yes, I like to use the actual domain objects for all the pages that operate on a single object at a time: edit, view, create, etc.
You said you are taking an existing object and copying the fields you need into a DTO and then passing the DTO as part of the model to your templating engine for a view page (or vice-versa for a create). What does that buy you? The ref to the DTO doesn't weigh any less than the ref to the full domain object, and you have all the extra attribute copying to do. There's no rule that says your templating engine has to use every method on your object.
I would use a small partial domain object if it improves efficiency (no relationship graphs to build), especially for the results of a search. But if the object already exists don't worry about how big or complex it is when you are sticking it in the model to render a page. It doesn't move the object around in memory. It doesn't cause the templating engine stress. It just accesses the methods it needs and ignores the rest.
2nd edit:
Good point. There are situations where you would want a limited set of properties available to the view (ie. different front-end and back-end developers). I should read more carefully before replying. If I were going to do what you want I would probably put separate methods on User (or whatever class) of the form forEdit() and forDisplay(). That way you could just get User from the service layer and tell User to give you the use limited copies of itself. I think maybe that's what I was reaching for with the anemic objects comment.
You should use a DTO and never an ORM in the MVC layer! There are a number of really good questions already asked on this, such as the following: Why should I isolate my domain entities from my presentation layer?
But to add to that question, you should separate them to help prevent the ORM being bound on a post as the potential is there for someone to add an extra field and cause all kinds of mayhem requiring unnecessary extra validation.
I'm trying to serialize objects from a database that have been retrieved with Hibernate, and I'm only interested in the objects' actual data in its entirety (cycles included).
Now I've been working with XStream, which seems powerful. The problem with XStream is that it looks all too blindly on the information. It recognizes Hibernate's PersistentCollections as they are, with all the Hibernate metadata included. I don't want to serialize those.
So, is there a reasonable way to extract the original Collection from within a PersistentCollection, and also initialize all referring data the objects might be pointing to. Or can you recommend me to a better approach?
(The results from Simple seem perfect, but it can't cope with such basic util classes as Calendar. It also accepts only one annotated object at a time)
solution described here worked well for me: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/XSTR-226
the idea is to have custom XStream converter/mapper for hibernate collections, which will extract actual collection from hibernate one and will call corresponding standard converter (for ArrayList, HashMap etc.)
I recommend a simpler approach: user dozer: http://dozer.sf.net. Dozer is a bean mapper, you can use it to convert, say, a PersonEJB to an object of the same class. Dozer will recursively trigger all proxy fecthes through getter() calls, and will also convert src types to dest types (let's say java.sql.date to java.utilDate).
Here's a snippet:
MapperIF mapper = DozerBeanMapperSingletonWrapper.getInstance();
PersonEJB serializablePerson = mapper.map(myPersonInstance, PersonEJB.class);
Bear in mind, as dozer walks through your object tree it will trigger the proxy loading one by one, so if your object graph has many proxies you will see many queries, which can be expensive.
What generally seems to be the best way to do it, and the way I am currently doing it is to have another layer of DTO objects. This way you can exclude data that you don't want to go over the channel as well as limit the depth to which the graph is serialized. I use Dozer for my current DTO (Data Transfer Object) from Hibernate objects to the Flex client.
It works great, with a few caveats:
It's not fast, in fact it's downright slow. If you send a lot of data, Dozer will not perform very well. This is mostly because of the Reflection involved in performing its magic.
In a few cases you'll have to write custom converters for special behavior. These work very well, but they are bi-directional. I personally had to hack the Dozer source to allow uni-directional custom converters.