To DTO or not to DTO ...





In every single Enterprise Java project I am faced with the question: To DTO or not to DTO? A DTO (Data Transfer Object) is a potential design element to be used in the service layer of an enterprise system. DTOs have a single purpose: To transport data between the service layer and the presentation layer. If you use DTOs you have to pay for it. That is, you need mapping code that copies the data from your domain model to the DTOs and the other way round. On the other hand, you get additional functionality from the DTOs. For example, if you have to support multiple languages, measurement systems and currencies, all the transformation stuff can be encapsulated in mapping code that copies data between domain model and DTOs.

Over the years I´ve collected some personal guidelines that help me deciding the DTO-question in new projects. Here we go:
When NOT to use DTOs:

Small to mid-sized project team. That is: At max 5 people.
Team sits in one location.
No separate teams for GUI and backend.
If you don't use DTOs, the presentation and the backend will be tightly coupled (the domain model will be used directly in the presentation layer). This is OK if the project scope is limited and you know more or less what the product will look like in the end. It is definitely NOT OK if you work on some kind of strategic, mission critical application that is likely to live for 10-15 years and will be extended by multiple teams in the future.
Highly skilled team with developers that understand the technical implications of tight coupling between backend domain model and presentation. For example, if you use some kind of OR mapping framework to persist the domain model, the team has to understand under what conditions what data is available in the presentation layer.
Only limited I18N requirements. That is: Multiple languages are OK, multiple measurement systems, complex currency conversions and so on are not.
When to use DTOs:

Teams with more than 5 people. Starting with this size, teams will split up and architecture needs to take this into account (just a side note: the phenomenom that the architecture of a system corresponds to the structure of the development team is called Conway´s law). If teams split up, the tight coupling between backend and presentation is inacceptable, so we need DTOs to prevent this.
Teams that work distributed at several locations. The worst-case examples are projects that use some kind of nearshoring or offshoring models.
The need for complex mapping functionality between domain model in the backend and the presentation layer.
Average skilled team, you have junior developers or web-only developers in your team. The usage of DTOs allows them to use the backend services as a "black-box".
Reduce overhead between backend and presentation. DTOs can be optimized for certain service calls. An optimized DTO contains only those attributes that are absolutely required. Popular examples are search services, that return lists of slim DTOs. In fact, performance optimization is often the one and only argument to introduce DTOs. IMO, this factor is often overemphasized. It may be very important for "real" internet applications that produce a very high load on the backend. For enterprise systems, one should carefully consider all pros and cons before introducing DTOs on a wide scale in an archictecture "just" for performance reasons. Maybe it is good enough to optimize just the top 3 search services using sepcialized DTOs and use domain objects in all over services (especially the CRUD services).
Consequences of the usage of DTOs

As I mentioned already, DTOs don´t come for free. It is crucial to document the consequences of the introduction of DTOs in the software architecture documentation. The stakeholders of the project must understand, that DTOs are a very expensive feature of a system. The most important consequences of DTOs are:

You must maintain two separate models: a domain model in the backend that implements the business functionality and a DTO model that transports more or less the same data to the presentation layer.
Easy to understand, but nonetheless something you should mention several times to your manager: Two models cost more than one model. Most of the additional costs arise after initial development: You must synchronize both models all the time in the maintenance phase of the system.
Additional mapping code is necessary. You must make a well considered design decision about how the mapping logic is implemented. One extreme is the manual implementation with tons of is-not-null checks. The other extreme are mapping frameworks that promise to do all the work for you automagically. Personally, I´ve tried out both extremes and several variations inbetween and have still not found the optimal solution.

То есть большинству из вас DTO не то чтобы не нужны, а даже вредны

Плевались, плакали, но продолжали есть кактус...

Тремя описаниями?

Почему бы для этих целей не использовать type?

потому что это будет тот же самый дто

дто - это не класс у которого на конце dto

это немного другое

Это класс без методов, у которого на конце DTO

назначение у этого класса какое?

Я тут немного в замешательстве теперь, а чем он отличается от pojo?)

Которое можно поручить объекту

я спросил что он делает, а не что с ним можно сделать

для чего он используется

Денис,

Типизация в тс лишь типизирует как бы не звучало, задачей трансферов было изменения модели данных.

Статью что ты привёл в пример 2010 года, дто в основе решали проблемы паттернов по типу удалённых фасадов и ещё десяток подобных паттернов, которые были применены после 2010года.

Как минимум дто это класс, а не тип, а значит можно автоматизировать многие трансформации и избежать лишней типизации "руками".
В .NET например для этого есть мапперы специальные для автоматизации изменений моделей данных.

dto - передача данных
pojo - обычный класс который используется внутри, но который не передается наружу

блин давно я не слышал про pojo 🙂