1

Topic: With what are fashionable for using?

What generally   now use, or all write the bicycles? Under "" mean  between we tell layer DTO and business by model and on the contrary. I saw set of examples when such  were written independently (by means of a reflection, when fields  on the basis of the titles), or there are type libraries http://automapper.org/. Who as approaches to it? The task with those DTO consists for example in the assembly of class CreditCard () where from the come fields in DTO it is necessary to filter various characters (we tell gaps, - / ), it is how much indirect libraries facilitate business?

2

Re: With what are fashionable for using?

Hello, Stalker., you wrote: S> how much indirect libraries it is business facilitate? We suppose, at you is  class Mapper, with a heap of static methods of type MapToDTO and MapFromDTO. Or even on  on each pair model-dto. Each method - as a matter of fact idle time object initializer where autocompletion prompts - to you that yet , and control of types allows to check up at compilation a correctness . Now we take FastMapper. When it falls in  - it does not give distinct diagnostics that where fell. When you write for it expressions  a type.MapField (d => d. Id, d => d. Id), you cannot write there "?.", because  it does not support. You cannot use autohelp IDE to see, what else fields not . If the project was compiled, it does not mean yet that  normally fulfills in . In general, automatic  an essence angrily and to use them it is not necessary.

3

Re: With what are fashionable for using?

Hello, Stalker., you wrote: S> What generally   now use, or all write the bicycles? Under "" mean  between we tell layer DTO and business by model and on the contrary. I saw set of examples when such  were written independently (by means of a reflection, when fields  on the basis of the titles), or there are type libraries http://automapper.org/. Who as approaches to it? The task with those DTO consists for example in the assembly of class CreditCard () where from the come fields in DTO it is necessary to filter various characters (we tell gaps, - / ), it is how much indirect libraries facilitate business?  - doubtless harm. I know two refined solutions of a problem of conversion of models: - to pass on Scala. It supports concrete parameters by a call of methods and designers so at usage of the designer for creation and object filling the reliable decision turns out: New field adding in the designer  causes a compilation error. To confuse parameters in places or to forget something to specify too it does not turn out. - to use . Manual or  through lombok. The error will be already at a performance stage, but it is possible not to write difficult tests for simple converters any more.

4

Re: With what are fashionable for using?

Hello, Stalker., you wrote: S> What generally   now use, or all write the bicycles? Under "" mean  between we tell layer DTO and business by model and on the contrary. I saw set of examples when such  were written independently (by means of a reflection, when fields  on the basis of the titles), or there are type libraries http://automapper.org/. Who as approaches to it? The task with those DTO consists for example in the assembly of class CreditCard () where from the come fields in DTO it is necessary to filter various characters (we tell gaps, - / ), it is how much indirect libraries facilitate business? I consider that it is necessary to write hands a heap . Sense of a heap of partially doubled classes in control and , and  it hide, thus removing a part of sense of doubled classes. If to use such approach any proxies simply are easier to transfer in  and in this  already to adjust that it would be desirable, instead of to double classes. DRY it is not always useful.