I am developing a new web application with Struts2, Spring and Hibernate as its core building blocks.
We have created POJO classes with respect to hibernate mapping files.There will be some inputs from users which needs to be updated in to the underlying database
e.g registration or updation.
We have few option like creating new POJO/DTO for action classes which will be filled by the Struts2 and than we can transfer them to the service layer where we can convert those DTO to the respected hibernate POJO else we can expose same POJO to struts2 so that the framework can fill them with the user input and we need not to do the work for conversion and creating extra set of classes.
Application will be not big in size and will have a medium size application tag.
My question is what is the best way to transfer this user input to underlying hibernate layer to perform data base specific work.
Thanks in advance
I'd prefer the "DTO" approach in this case since you then can validate the input first and trigger updates only when wanted.
However, you could use detached entities as DTOs and reattach them when you want to create or update them. If you don't want the web part of your application to depend on Hibernate and/or JPA you might need to create another set of classes (unless you don't use a single annotation).
You'll get both answers on this.
With Struts 2 I tend to use normal S2 action properties to gather form values/etc. and use BeanUtils to copy them to the Hibernate objects. The problem with exposing the Hibernate objects to the form, like with ModelDriven etc. is that you need to define whitelists/blacklists if you have columns that should not be set directly by the user. (Or handle the problem in a different way.)
That said, I'm not fundamentally opposed to the idea like a lot of people are, and they're arguably correct.
Related
This question already has answers here:
How to use DTO in JSF + Spring + Hibernate
(2 answers)
JSF Service Layer
(2 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I am developing a java web application and am trying to follow some patterns like dao/dto. At the moment i am thinking about such base architecture layers:
I ran into some questions regarding the layers. The scheme would go as such: DAO takes in DTO and returns objects(entities) from DataBase, Service layer also takes in DTO, uses DAO and does all the required logic with the returned objects. UI Bean, Service, DAO and DTO classes are Entity specific - each entity has its own layers.
Now would i need the UI bean to use in views or would that be an overkill and UI views can directly use service classes as ui beans? If no, why would i need UI bean?
Another question is regarding DTO. I have created entities with all the required properties and as i understand DTO classes are like reflections of Entity classes. So why would i need these DTO classes and if i use them i recon it would require some converting from entity to dto and vice versa. Do i do the converting in Service layer? Would views (for eg. html pages) also display DTO object properties not actual Entities (as in calling #{UIBean.entityProperty})?
First of all, I would use the DTO beans on the front-end part only, but since u already mention UI-beans, i suppose these will do the trick just fine, the facade uses these to pass them to the controller for displaying your web-components.
in between the Service and the facade you map the entities of the backend towards dto-beans.
In this way your front-end will be completely loosely coupled to your backend.
Regarding your 2nd question I would like to point out an exact valable reason why your UI should always use dto or view beans.
You can combine several backend entity-beans into one dto bean for easier processing on the front-end.
In general I keep always in mind DTO's for public acces, eta a web-service exposing it or a web-front end or a swing app, or...
Entity classes only used in dao and service layer never further up.
As rule of thumb try to divide logical layers according to your context. Inspire you of the theory but use it with care. I give you my humble understanding of layer's interest with few examples. This vision is of course not complete but I hope it will help you to answer your questions.
So is it overkill to use UIBean instead of Service DTO ? I would say it depends of your context.
Maybe there are user inputs data inside your UI beans ? You have to validate them with JSR 303 annotations for example. If those annotations have a meaning in this layer they are useless for underneath layers. That's why you will have a UIBean with JSR 303 annotations and a DTOBean without JSR 303 annotations.
But if they are exactly the same why duplicate ? Maybe at UIBean layer a date could be represented as a String type and you want to manipulate Date type instead of String at DTO layer. That's why you need to adapt your data between layers to work with objects that make sense to a particular layer. For example, you could add a BOAdapter (between UIView and Service) and DTOAdapter (between Service and DAO). Those adapters are usefull for transforming your data inside each POJO's format. For example, you could have in your BO(=UIBean) a date expressed inside three strings and you want a Date object for DTO so you transform it inside the BOAdapter:
public class BOAdapter(){
private BOAdapter(){}
public static DTO toDTO(BO objectBO){
DTO objectDTO = new DTO();
SimpleDateFormat df = new SimpleDateFormat("yyyy-MM-aa");
objectDTO.setDate(df.parse(objectBO.getYear()+"-"+objectBO.getMonth()+"-"+objectBO.getDay());
[...]
}
}
Why I need DTOAdapter ? Maybe you have a database that contains at least two tables Customers and Adresses with an integrity constraint between them. JPA will automatically generate the right code. But do you really need all this code up to UIView ? I mean if the functionnality you are coding needs only the name, surname and date of birth of your customer, their adress is useless. Again that's why you need to adapt your data between layers to work with objects that make sense to a particular layer. In this case you could create a DTO object only with name, surname and date of birth information and create a method inside your DTOadapter to transform your custom DTO into an heavy JPA object to work properly with database.
But I need the whole entity for coding my fonctionnality ? Maybe you need to add validation constraints inside this layer besides JSR 303. So it could be interesting to have DTO classes besides your entity for the same reason as BO objects.
But my entity is big how duplicate it easily ? Try to use a tool to map data (like dozer) automatically. If it is not too big do it manually.
Since you have Spring tag,
I will replace your [DAO] with Spring Data Repository. So most of the time, you write interface method / #query annotation, Spring Data write implement.
Replace DTO with JPA Entity. So I could use some reverse engineering.
[UI Bean] will most be composite of JPA Entity. With some validation
We have a web application which uses JSP, Servlet and Hibernate. The design pattern we got is MVC like, which means,
JSP -> Servlet -> Beans (POJO)
Now the question. Once of out developers has inserted the hibernate queries, hibernate session creation etc inside POJOs. Now inside these POJOs, there are methods like getAllEmployees(), getAllAgents() etc. This made it extremely hard for us to change the database tables (we handle database manually, using MySQL Workbench) and use automatic tools to re-generate the POJOs because these methods will be lost.
Now there are 2 arguments. One is that this maintaining hibernate queries, sessions inside POJOs is a good work, because it seems like pure MVC. The other argument is move the hibernatre code to Servlets and call the POJOs just like beans, only to set and get values.
We have not worked in Hibernate before. From above 2, what is the preferred place to write hibermnate code when it comes to hibernate?
Finally, please note we are not interested in Spring or other frameworks, we use pure JSP and Servlet with Hibernate
Probably, what you need is another layer of abstraction. Since your pojos are recreated after new migrations, you shouldn't insert code in it (I don't agree with that aproach, but that's just my opinion :-) )
JSP -> Servlet -> NewLayer -> POJO
I don't know where you put your business rules, but in this scenario it will be in the "NewLayer" wich would consist of a "hibrid" layer of service and dao.
I would recommend these readings to rethink your actual architecture:
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/220909/service-layer-vs-dao-why-both
Responsibilities and use of Service and DAO Layers
In simple terms, why do we need 'a bean to bean mapping service' (like Dozer) in a web-application.
Suppose I'm working on a web-service.
I'm receiving an XML in request.
I fetch the the values from XML elements.
Perform the required operation on the fetched values.
Prepare the response XML.
Send the response XML as response
Why should I add one more steps of mapping XML elements to own custom elements.
I'm not able to convince myself, probably because I'm not able to think of a better situation/reason.
Please suggest, with example if possible.
It helps to reduce coupling between the presentation (i.e. the XML schema) and the business logic. For example in case of schema changes you don't have to touch the business logic, just the mapping between the objects.
In simple cases it might not be worth the additional complexity. But if the objects are used extensively in the business logic component you should consider it.
Just as a quick answer, the case you described is not the only one :).
Suppose you are working with an internal library providing some POJO / entity / other beans. You want to abstract from the internal representation (for a reason or anohter), you then want to map those bean to yours. It works :
for ejb client, or somehting like that,
when you don't want to expose internal entities (Business Object vs Presentation object) (see #Henry's reply)
you have beans that don't inherit from the same parent (and can't for any reason, even leacy) and you want to tarnsfert value from on to another
There are plenty of (other) reasons :)
As an advice see also orika
and this post :
any tool for java object to object mapping?
Short answer for me as henry said it helps reduce coupling between what you expose or consume and your core data model.
It is one way build Hexagonal Architecture. You can freely modify your core model without impacting the exposed model. In hexagonal architecture, it is used to expose only a small relevant part of the core model.
It is also a very goog way to handle services and model versionning since multiple versions can be mapped to the core model.
When working with XML services I tend to build contract first application so, I first write the XMLSchema then generate Jaxbeans and I realy don't want my business code to be polluted by JAxb annotations.
If you know that your exposed model will always be the same and that your application does not fall in the previously mentionned cases, so you realy don't need to use DTO.
Last, I would recommend using a framework with strong compile time checking like Selma instead of Dozer or Orika because they are evaluating the mapping only at runtime which is weak typing and sensible to refactoring.
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 hesitating between two designs of a database project using Hibernate.
Design #1.
(1) Create a general data provider interface, including a set of DAO interfaces and general data container classes. It hides the underneath implementation. A data provider implementation could access data in database, or an XML file, or a service, or something else. The user of a data provider does not to know about it.
(2) Create a database library with Hibernate. This library implements the data provider interface in (1).
The bad thing about Design #1 is that in order to hide the implementation details, I need to create two sets of data container classes. One in the general data provider interface - let's call them DPI-Objects, the other set is used in the database library, exclusively for entity/attribute mapping in Hibernate - let's call them H-Objects. In the DAO implementation, I need to read data from database to create H-Objects (via Hibernate) and then convert H-Objects into DPI-Objects.
Design #2.
Do not create a general data provider interface. Expose H-Objects directly to components that use the database lib. So the user of the database library needs to be aware of Hibernate.
I like design #1 more, but I don't want to create two sets of data container classes. Is that the right way to hide H-Objects and other Hibernate implementation details from the user who uses the database-based data provider?
Are there any drawbacks of Design #2? I will not implement other data provider in the new future, so should I just forget about the data provider interface and use Design #2?
What do you think about this? Thanks for your time!
Hibernate Domain objects are simple POJO so you won't have to create separate DPI-objects, H-Object themselves can be used directly. In DAO you can control whether they come from hibernate or anything else.
I highly recommend reading Chapter 4 "Hitting the database" of Spring in Action, 3rd edition, even if you aren't using Spring in your application. Although my second recommendation would be to use Spring :-)
The DAO pattern is a great way to keep database and ORM logic isolated in the DAO implementation, and you only need one set of entity objects. You can make that happen without Spring, it just takes more work managing your sessions and transactions.
If I understand your post, this is sort of a middle-ground between Design 1 and Design 2. The H-Objects (the entities that Hibernates loads and persists) don't need any Hibernate specific code in them at all. That makes them perfectly acceptable to be used as your DPI-Objects.
I've had arguments with folks in the past who complain that the use of JPA or Hibernate Annotations exposes Hibernate specifics through the DAO interface. I personally take a more pragmatic view, since annotations are just metadata, and don't directly affect the operation of your entity classes.
If you do feel that the annotations expose too much, then you can go old school and use Hibernate Mappings instead. Then your H-Objects are 100% Hibernate free :-)
I recommend design #2. Simply construct domain objects, and let hibernate look after them. Don't write separate classes that are persisted.
Hibernate tries to hide most of the persistence business from you. You may need to add a few small annotations to your entities to help it along. But certainly don't make separate classes.
You may need some very small DAO classes. For example, if you have a Person entity, it would be fairly common practice to have a PersonDAO object that saves a person. Having said that, the code inside the DAO will be very simple, so for a really small project, it may not be worth it. For a large project, it's probably worth keeping your persistence code separate from your business logic, in case you want to use a different persistence technology later.