We Keep Coding

What is the main reason to create a DTO nowadays? [duplicate]

Why should I use DTOs/Domain objects when I can just put all business classes in a class library, use them in the business logic, then also pass those same business objects on to boundary classes?
UPDATE:
All are great points, thanks for the help. A follow up question:
Where do you typically place these DTOs? Alongside the Domain objects i.e. in the same namespace?
namespace MedSched.Medical
{
public class MedicalGroup
{
//...
}
public class MedicalGroupDTO
{
//...
}
}

The DTO's provide an abstraction layer for your domain model. You can therefore change the model and not break the contract you have for your service clients. This is akin to a common practice in database design where views and procedures become the abstraction layer for the underlying data model.
Serialization - you may over expose data and send bloated messages over the wire. This may be mitigated by using serialization attributes, but you may still have extra information.
Implicit vs. Explicit Contracts - by exposing domain objects you leave it up to the client to interpret their usage since they do not have the full model at their disposal. You will often make updates to domain objects implicitly based on the presence or removal of associations, or blindly accept all changes. DTOs explicitly express the usage of the service and the desired operation.
Disconnected Scenarios - having explicit messages or DTOs would make it easier for you to implement messaging and messaging patterns such as Message Broker, etc.
DDD - pure DDD demands that domain objects are externally immutable, and therefore you must offload this to another object, typically a DTO.

I can think of 2 basic scenarios for using DTOs:
You're creating your business object from data that's incomplete and will fail validation. For example, you're parsing a CSV file or an Excel file from where your business object is created. If you use data directly from these objects to create your business object, it is quite possible to fail several validation rules within the object, because data from such files are prone to errors. They also tend to have a different structure that you have in your final business object: having a placeholder for that incomplete data will be useful.
You're transporting your business object through a medium that is bandwidth intensive. If you are using a web service, you will need to use DTOs to simplify your object before transport; otherwise the CLR will have a hard time trying to serialize all your data.

DTOs are Data Transfer Objects, with Transfer being the key word. They are great when you want to pass your objects across the wire and potentially communicate with a different language because they are "light weight" (ie no business logic.)
If your application isn't web service based, DTOs aren't really going to buy you anything.
So deciding to use or not use DTOs should be based on the architecture of your application.

There are times when the data you want to pass around doesn't map exactly to the structure the business objects, in which case you use DTOs.
Ex: when you want to pass a subset of the data or a projection.

Java-Use of knowing the differences between Entity, Vo, POJO, Javabeans, etc

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.

java type conversion between layers

It is common in Java applications to have :
an IHM layer
a service layer
a dao layer
It is common that each layer has it's own objects and relies on converters to transform objects from a layer to the other.
In my case, I use Sing MVC as the IHM layer, and MyBatis as the doa layer.
Since Spring MVC and MyBatis use only beans without any annotations on that beans :
Is it necessary to have differents objects on the 3 layers ?
Is it a good practice to share the same object between the 3 layers ?
Or why it is not recommended to do so ?

In most cases it is a good practice to keep a full seperation between layers.
Lets say you have an object called UserDAO that holds user data, and after writing quite a lot of code on all layers you decide to update sureName to be lastName in the object, now you have to go through all the layers and change every reference to that object field.
On the other hand, if you kept this object on the DB layer and mapped it to other objects on the upper layers, all you need to change is the mapping:
somObj.setUserLastName(dao.getSureName());
to:
somObj.setUserLastName(dao.getLastName());
of course this is a silly example, but it is just for demonstration.
On the other hand, seperating every object on every layer might cause a lot of redundency and duplication and can turn into a maintenance horror, so you need to think of the pros and cons and decide where it is most suitable to seperate and where not.

I have worked on both projects that have a model for each layer and projects that have a good domain model.
My preference goes to a domain model where the developers and architects took the time to develop it and think about the use of each field.
This kind of domain model is much easier to maintain and update.
I remember having to add a field to the DAO layer which implied I had to update 3 models and 4 converters. The risk of introducing bugs is major. Especially if each layer has, for example, another implementation of the Date object. (Dao --> java.sql.Timestamp, Service --> java.util.Date).
So I advise a good domain model shared across all layers.

Spring MVC: should service layer be returning operation specific DTO's?

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.

Why are data transfer objects (DTOs) an anti-pattern?

I've recently overheard people saying that data transfer objects (DTOs) are an anti-pattern.
Why? What are the alternatives?

Some projects have all data twice. Once as domain objects, and once as data transfer objects.
This duplication has a huge cost, so the architecture needs to get a huge benefit from this separation to be worth it.

DTOs are not an anti-pattern. When you're sending some data across the wire (say, to an web page in an Ajax call), you want to be sure that you conserve bandwidth by only sending data that the destination will use. Also, often it is convenient for the presentation layer to have the data in a slightly different format than a native business object.
I know this is a Java-oriented question, but in .NET languages anonymous types, serialization, and LINQ allow DTOs to be constructed on-the-fly, which reduces the setup and overhead of using them.

"DTO an AntiPattern in EJB 3.0" (original link currently offline) says:
The heavy weight nature of Entity
Beans in EJB specifications prior to
EJB 3.0, resulted in the usage of
design patterns like Data Transfer
Objects (DTO). DTOs became the
lightweight objects (which should have
been the entity beans themselves in
the first place), used for sending the
data across the tiers... now EJB 3.0
spec makes the Entity bean model same
as Plain old Java object (POJO). With
this new POJO model, you will no
longer need to create a DTO for each
entity or for a set of entities... If
you want to send the EJB 3.0 entities
across the tier make them just
implement java.io.Serialiazable

OO purists would say that DTO is anti-pattern because objects become data table representations instead of real domain objects.

I don't think DTOs are an anti-pattern per se, but there are antipatterns associated with the use of DTOs. Bill Dudney refers to DTO explosion as an example:
http://www.softwaresummit.com/2003/speakers/DudneyJ2EEAntiPatterns.pdf
There are also a number of abuses of DTOs mentioned here:
http://anirudhvyas.com/root/2008/04/19/abuses-of-dto-pattern-in-java-world/
They originated because of three tier systems (typically using EJB as technology) as a means to pass data between tiers. Most modern day Java systems based on frameworks such as Spring take a alternative simplified view using POJOs as domain objects (often annotated with JPA etc...) in a single tier... The use of DTOs here is unnecessary.

Some consider DTOs an anti-pattern due to their possible abuses. They're often used when they shouldn't be/don't need to be.
This article vaguely describes some abuses.

The question should not be "why", but "when".
Definitively it's anti-pattern when only result of using it is higher cost - run-time or maintenance. I worked on projects having hundreds of DTOs identical to database entity classes. Each time you wanted to add a single field you ad to add id like four times - to DTO, to entity, to conversion from DTO to domain classes or entities, the inverse conversion, ... You forgot some of the places and data got inconsistent.
It's not anti-pattern when you really need different representation of domain classes - flatter, richer, ...
Personally I start with a domain class and pass it around, with proper checks at the right places. I can annotate and/or add some "helper" classes to make mappings to database, to serialization formats like JSON or XML ... I can always split a class to two if I feel the need.
It's about your point of view - I prefer to look at a domain object as a single object playing various roles, instead of multiple objects created from each other. If the only role an object is to transport data, then it's DTO.

If you're building a distributed system, then DTOs are certainly not an anti pattern. Not everyone will develop in that sense, but if you have a (for example) Open Social app all running off JavaScript.
It will post a load of data to your API. This is then deserialized into some form of object, typically a DTO/Request object. This can then be validated to ensure the data entered is correct before being converted into a model object.
In my opinion, it's seen as an anti-pattern because it's mis-used. If you're not build a distributed system, chances are you don't need them.

DTO becomes a necessity and not an ANTI-PATTERN when you have all your domain objects load associated objects EAGERly.
If you don't make DTOs, you will have unnecessary transferred objects from your business layer to your client/web layer.
To limit overhead for this case, rather transfer DTOs.

I think the people mean it could be an anti-pattern if you implement all remote objects as DTOs. A DTO is merely just a set of attributes and if you have big objects you would always transfer all the attributes even if you do not need or use them. In the latter case prefer using a Proxy pattern.

The intention of a Data Transfer Object is to store data from different sources and then transfer it into a database (or Remote Facade) at once.
However, the DTO pattern violates the Single Responsibility Principle, since the DTO not only stores data, but also transfers it from or to the database/facade.
The need to separate data objects from business objects is not an antipattern, since it is probably required to separate the database layer anyway.
Instead of DTOs you should use the Aggregate and Repository Patterns, which separates the collection of objects (Aggregate) and the data transfer (Repository).
To transfer a group of objects you can use the Unit Of Work pattern, that holds a set of Repositories and a transaction context; in order to transfer each object in the aggregate separately within the transaction.