Search Results

Search found 211 results on 9 pages for 'dto'.

Page 1/9 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  | Next Page >

  • Entity Framework + AutoMapper ( Entity to DTO and DTO to Entity )

    - by vbobruisk
    Hello. i got some problems using EF with AutoMapper. =/ for example : i got 2 related entities ( Customers and Orders ) and theyr DTO classes : class CustomerDTO { public string CustomerID {get;set;} public string CustomerName {get;set;} public IList< OrderDTO Orders {get;set;} } class OrderDTO { public string OrderID {get;set;} public string OrderDetails {get;set;} public CustomerDTO Customers {get;set;} } //when mapping Entity to DTO the code works Customers cust = getCustomer(id); Mapper.CreateMap< Customers, CustomerDTO (); Mapper.CreateMap< Orders, OrderDTO (); CustomerDTO custDTO = Mapper.Map(cust); //but when i try to map back from DTO to Entity it fails with AutoMapperMappingException. Mapper.Reset(); Mapper.CreateMap< CustomerDTO , Customers (); Mapper.CreateMap< OrderDTO , Orders (); Customers customerModel = Mapper.Map< CustomerDTO ,Customers (custDTO); // exception is thrown here Am i doeing something wrong ? Thanks in Advance !

    Read the article

  • NHibernate. DTO -> Domain

    - by Andrew Kalashnikov
    Hello guys. I've got SOA which processing data for diff clients(asp,sl). The base of this design is domains of my business model. For transporting,showing it to clients I use DTO. For mapping domain to DTO I use AutoMapper. Now I should persist new entities from clients. I want use my DTO's at this scenario too. So i've got some questions as I'm not much familiar with this design 1) Is it a good practice build DTO on client and send it to web-service on the wire? MayBe i should pass my domains? 2) Is it possible have several DTO's to one domain (one show at grid, and one to save). For saving I need set all nonprimitive props at client. 3) DTO - to Domain. If I've got int can I use AutoMapper to generate NHibernate Proxy for this ID, or I should do i manually. Your expierence and practice are very interesting. Thanks for answer!!!

    Read the article

  • DTO and mapper generation from Domain Objects

    - by Nicolas
    I have plenty of java domain objects that I need to transform to DTOs. Please, don't start with the anti-pattern thing, the Domain Objects are what they are because of a long history, and I can't modify them (or not too much, see below). So, of course, we've passed the age of doing all that manually. I've looked around, and dozer seems the framework of choice for DTO mapping. But... what I'd really like is this: annotate classes and fields that I want in DTO, and run a tool that would generate the DTOs and the mappers. Does that sound too unreasonable? Does such a tool already exist?

    Read the article

  • can you have too many dto/bo - mapping method

    - by Fredou
    I have a windows service, 2 web services and a web interface that need to follow the same path (data wise). So I came up with two ways of creating my solution. My concern is the fact that the UI/WS/etc will have their own kind of DTO (let's say the model in ASP.Net MVC) that should be mapped to a DTO so the SL can then map it to a BO then mapping it to the proper EF6 DTO so that I can save it in a database. So I'm thinking of doing it this way to remove one level of mapping. Which one should I take? Or is there a 3rd solution?

    Read the article

  • Hibernate GenericDAO for parent/child relationships and DAO/DTO patterns

    - by Marco
    Hi, I'm looking for a Generic DAO implementation in Hibernate that includes parent/child relationship management (adding, removing, getting childs, setting parents, etc). Actually the most used generic DAO on the web is the one i found on http://community.jboss.org/wiki/GenericDataAccessObjects. And also, i was looking for some DAO/DTO sample implementations and design patterns. Do you know some good resources out there?

    Read the article

  • Convert XML to Java DTO and back in GWT

    - by RB
    Looking for best approach to convert Java DTO to XML and back while using GWT. I saw GWT has XMLParser in its client package which is a DOM Parser. I'm looking for more like a JAXB kind of plugin feature that I can use with GWT.

    Read the article

  • Suggestions on how to map from Domain (ORM) objects to Data Transfer Objects (DTO)

    - by FryHard
    The current system that I am working on makes use of Castle Activerecord to provide ORM (Object Relational Mapping) between the Domain objects and the database. This is all well and good and at most times actually works well! The problem comes about with Castle Activerecords support for asynchronous execution, well, more specifically the SessionScope that manages the session that objects belong to. Long story short, bad stuff happens! We are therefore looking for a way to easily convert (think automagically) from the Domain objects (who know that a DB exists and care) to the DTO object (who know nothing about the DB and care not for sessions, mapping attributes or all thing ORM). Does anyone have suggestions on doing this. For the start I am looking for a basic One to One mapping of object. Domain object Person will be mapped to say PersonDTO. I do not want to do this manually since it is a waste. Obviously reflection comes to mind, but I am hoping with some of the better IT knowledge floating around this site that "cooler" will be suggested. Oh, I am working in C#, the ORM objects as said before a mapped with Castle ActiveRecord. Example code: By @ajmastrean's request I have linked to an example that I have (badly) mocked together. The example has a capture form, capture form controller, domain objects, activerecord repository and an async helper. It is slightly big (3MB) because I included the ActiveRecored dll's needed to get it running. You will need to create a database called ActiveRecordAsync on your local machine or just change the .config file. Basic details of example: The Capture Form The capture form has a reference to the contoller private CompanyCaptureController MyController { get; set; } On initialise of the form it calls MyController.Load() private void InitForm () { MyController = new CompanyCaptureController(this); MyController.Load(); } This will return back to a method called LoadComplete() public void LoadCompleted (Company loadCompany) { _context.Post(delegate { CurrentItem = loadCompany; bindingSource.DataSource = CurrentItem; bindingSource.ResetCurrentItem(); //TOTO: This line will thow the exception since the session scope used to fetch loadCompany is now gone. grdEmployees.DataSource = loadCompany.Employees; }, null); } } this is where the "bad stuff" occurs, since we are using the child list of Company that is set as Lazy load. The Controller The controller has a Load method that was called from the form, it then calls the Asyc helper to asynchronously call the LoadCompany method and then return to the Capture form's LoadComplete method. public void Load () { new AsyncListLoad<Company>().BeginLoad(LoadCompany, Form.LoadCompleted); } The LoadCompany() method simply makes use of the Repository to find a know company. public Company LoadCompany() { return ActiveRecordRepository<Company>.Find(Setup.company.Identifier); } The rest of the example is rather generic, it has two domain classes which inherit from a base class, a setup file to instert some data and the repository to provide the ActiveRecordMediator abilities.

    Read the article

  • What is the best practice in regards to building composite dtos off of an aggregate root with domain

    - by Chance
    I'm trying to figure out the best approach/practice for assembling a composite data transfer object off of an aggregate root and would love to hear people's thoughts on this. For example, lets say I have a root that has a few domain objects as children. I want to assemble a specific view dto, based on some business logic, that either has attributes or full dto's of it's objects. What I'm struggling with is trying to figure out where that assembly should happen. I can see it going on the domain object of the aggregate root as there is some business logic associated with it. The benefits of this approach from what I've deduced thus far is that it should reduce the inevitable business logic from bleeding outisde of the domain object. It also allows for private methods that take care of tasks that could become more complex from an external builder. The downsides being that the domain object becomes much more entrenched in the application's workflow and represents much more than just the domain object. It also could become very large in the scenario where you need multiple composite Dtos. Alternatively, I could also see it belonging to some form of transfer object assembler where there is a builder for each domain object. The domain objects would still be responsible for GetDto() and UpdateFromDto(dto). Outside of that, the builder would handle the construction and deconstruction of composite dtos. The downside is kind of mentioned above, where I fear this will easily lead to developers unfamiliar with DDD bleeding a ton of business logic into the assembler which is what I want to desperately avoid. Any thoughts would be greatly apperciated.

    Read the article

  • NuSOAP PHP Request From XML

    - by Tegan Snyder
    I'm trying to take the following XML request and convert it to a NuSOAP request and I'm having a bit of difficulty. Could anybody chime in? XML Request: <soapenv:Envelope xmlns:soapenv="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:dto="http://dto.eai.dnbi.com" xmlns:com="http://com.dnbi.eai.service.AccountSEI"> <soapenv:Header> <dto:AuthenticationDTO> <dto:LOGIN_ID>[email protected]</dto:LOGIN_ID> <dto:LOGIN_PASSWORD>mypassword</dto:LOGIN_PASSWORD> </dto:AuthenticationDTO> </soapenv:Header> <soapenv:Body> <com:matchCompany> <com:in0> <!--Optional:--> <dto:bureauName></dto:bureauName> <!--Optional:--> <dto:businessInformation> <dto:address> <!--Optional:--> <dto:city>Bloomington</dto:city> <dto:country>US</dto:country> <dto:state>MN</dto:state> <dto:street>555 Plain ST</dto:street> <!--Optional:--> <dto:zipCode></dto:zipCode> </dto:address> <!--Optional:--> <dto:businessName>Some Company</dto:businessName> </dto:businessInformation> <!--Optional:--> <dto:entityNumber></dto:entityNumber> <!--Optional:--> <dto:entityType></dto:entityType> <!--Optional:--> <dto:listOfSimilars>true</dto:listOfSimilars> </com:in0> </com:matchCompany> </soapenv:Body> </soapenv:Envelope> And my PHP code: <?php require_once('nusoap.php'); $params = array( 'LOGIN_ID' => '[email protected]', 'LOGIN_PASSWORD' => 'mypassword', 'bureauName' => '', 'businessInformation' => array('address' => array('city' => 'Some City'), array('country' => 'US'), array('state' => 'MN'), array('street' => '555 Plain St.'), array('zipCode' => '32423')), array('businessName' => 'Some Company'), 'entityType' => '', 'listOfSimilars' => 'true', ); $wsdl="http://www.domain.com/ws/AccountManagement.wsdl"; $client = new nusoap_client($wsdl, true); $err = $client->getError(); if ($err) { echo '<h2>Constructor error</h2><pre>' . $err . '</pre>'; echo '<h2>Debug</h2><pre>' . htmlspecialchars($client->getDebug(), ENT_QUOTES) . '</pre>'; exit(); } $result = $client->call('matchCompany', $params); if ($client->fault) { echo '<h2>Fault (Expect - The request contains an invalid SOAP body)</h2><pre>'; print_r($result); echo '</pre>'; } else { $err = $client->getError(); if ($err) { echo '<h2>Error</h2><pre>' . $err . '</pre>'; } else { echo '<h2>Result</h2><pre>'; print_r($result); echo '</pre>'; } } echo '<h2>Request</h2><pre>' . htmlspecialchars($client->request, ENT_QUOTES) . '</pre>'; echo '<h2>Response</h2><pre>' . htmlspecialchars($client->response, ENT_QUOTES) . '</pre>'; echo '<h2>Debug</h2><pre>' . htmlspecialchars($client->getDebug(), ENT_QUOTES) . '</pre>'; ?> Am I generating the Header information correctly? I think that may be where I'm off. Thanks,

    Read the article

  • DTO or Domain Model Object in the View Layer?

    - by smayers81
    I know this is probably an age-old question, but what is the better practice? Using a domain model object throughout all layers of your application, and even binding values directly to them on the JSP (I'm using JSF). Or convert a domain model object into a DTO in the DAO or Service layer and send a lightweight DTO to the presentation layer. I have been told it makes no sense to use DTOs because changes to the database will result in changes to all your DTOs whereas using Model Objects everywhere will just require changes to the affected model object. However, the ease of use and the lightweight nature of DTOs seems to outweigh that. I should note that my app uses Hibernate Model Objects AND uses its own custom-created model objects (meaning not bound to any DB session, always detached). Is either of the above scenarios more beneficial to a strict Model Object pattern? Using Hibernate has been a huge PITA with regards to things like Lazy Initialization Exceptions.

    Read the article

  • servicestack Razor view with request and response DTO

    - by user7398
    I'm having a go with the razor functionality in service stack. I have a razor cshtml view working for one of my response DTO's. I need to access some values from the request DTO in the razor view that have been filled in from some fields from the REST route, so i can construct a url to put into the response html page and also label some form labels. Is there anyway of doing this? I don't want to duplicate the property from the request DTO into the response DTO just for this html view. Because i'm trying to emulate an existing REST service of another product, i do not want to emit extra data just for the html view. eg http://localhost/rest/{Name}/details/{Id} eg @inherits ViewPage<DetailsResponse> @{ ViewBag.Title = "todo title"; Layout = "HtmlReport"; } this needs to come from the request dto NOT @Model <a href="/rest/@Model.Name">link to user</a> <a href="/rest/@Model.Name/details/@Model.Id">link to user details</a>

    Read the article

  • Having fun with Reflection

    - by Nick Harrison
    I was once asked in a technical interview what I could tell them about Reflection.   My response, while a little tongue in cheek was that "I can tell you it is one of my favorite topics to talk about" I did get a laugh out of that and it was a great ice breaker.    Reflection may not be the answer for everything, but it often can be, or maybe even should be.     I have posted in the past about my favorite CopyTo method.   It can come in several forms and is often very useful.   I explain it further and expand on the basic idea here  The basic idea is to allow reflection to loop through the properties of two objects and synchronize the ones that are in common.   I love this approach for data binding and passing data across the layers in an application. Recently I have been working on a project leveraging Data Transfer Objects to pass data through WCF calls.   We won't go into how the architecture got this way, but in essence there is a partial duplicate inheritance hierarchy where there is a related Domain Object for each Data Transfer Object.     The matching objects do not share a common ancestor or common interface but they will have the same properties in common.    By passing the problems with this approach, let's talk about how Reflection and our friendly CopyTo could make the most of this bad situation without having to change too much. One of the problems is keeping the two sets of objects in synch.   For this particular project, the DO has all of the functionality and the DTO is used to simply transfer data back and forth.    Both sets of object have parallel hierarchies with the same properties being defined at the corresponding levels.   So we end with BaseDO,  BaseDTO, GenericDO, GenericDTO, ProcessAreaDO,  ProcessAreaDTO, SpecializedProcessAreaDO, SpecializedProcessAreaDTO, TableDo, TableDto. and so on. Without using Reflection and a CopyTo function, tremendous care and effort must be made to keep the corresponding objects in synch.    New properties can be added at any level in the inheritance and must be kept in synch at all subsequent layers.    For this project we have come up with a clever approach of calling a base GetDo or UpdateDto making sure that the same method at each level of inheritance is called.    Each level is responsible for updating the properties at that level. This is a lot of work and not keeping it in synch can create all manner of problems some of which are very difficult to track down.    The other problem is the type of code that this methods tend to wind up with. You end up with code like this: Transferable dto = new Transferable(); base.GetDto(dto); dto.OfficeCode = GetDtoNullSafe(officeCode); dto.AccessIndicator = GetDtoNullSafe(accessIndicator); dto.CaseStatus = GetDtoNullSafe(caseStatus); dto.CaseStatusReason = GetDtoNullSafe(caseStatusReason); dto.LevelOfService = GetDtoNullSafe(levelOfService); dto.ReferralComments = referralComments; dto.Designation = GetDtoNullSafe(designation); dto.IsGoodCauseClaimed = GetDtoNullSafe(isGoodCauseClaimed); dto.GoodCauseClaimDate = goodCauseClaimDate;       One obvious problem is that this is tedious code.   It is error prone code.    Adding helper functions like GetDtoNullSafe help out immensely, but there is still an easier way. We can bypass the tedious code, by pass the complex inheritance tricks, and reduce all of this to a single method in the base class. TransferObject dto = new TransferObject(); CopyTo (this, dto); return dto; In the case of this one project, such a change eliminated the need for 20% of the total code base and a whole class of unit test cases that made sure that all of the properties were in synch. The impact of such a change also needs to include the on going time savings and the improvements in quality that can arise from them.    Developers who are not worried about keeping the properties in synch across mirrored object hierarchies are freed to worry about more important things like implementing business requirements.

    Read the article

  • sharp architecture, FluentNHibernate, automapper, DTO, 1:m persistence question

    - by csetzkorn
    Let us say we have a class A which has a reference to another class B (1:m) public class A { public virtual B B { get; set; } } I reflect this using FluentNHibernate within the sharp architecture and also manage to ‘initialise’ A and its B via a DTO and Automapper. The DTO contain A’s values and B (just B’s id value/A’s foreign key initialised). I was hoping that I can persist A by ‘just’ using its 'out of the box repository' without requiring B’s repository using: SaveOrUpdate(A); (A has been mapped using AutoMapper and contains B with its Id initialised) Was my assumption too naive? Can I achieve this somehow (without ever requiring B’s repository)? Or do I have to use A’s and B’s repository in, for example, the controller or some other service layer? Thanks. Best wishes, Christian

    Read the article

  • AutoMapper and SecurityException in IIS

    - by Felipe
    Hi everybody... I'm developing a asp.net mvc application with nhibernate and I would not like to expose my objects mappings with NHibernate, so I created DTO for each entity and I'm trying to convert my Domain objects to DTO and send it to View. So I have in my sollution: ClassLibrary with my Domain (for NHibernate) and DTO objetcs Class library to make a SessionFactory adn Factories in my Project Asp.Net MVC 2 Application So, I download AutoMapper to transform Domain objects in DTO and add a the code to do this in Application_Start of global.asax. When I run in VisualStudio (by pressing F5) it works fine and my dtos are into the view, So when I publish this in IIS, I get a security exception =( in first line of conversion: Mapper.CreateMap(); <--- this line throw exception Mapper.CreateMap(); System.Security.SecurityException: Failed request for the permission of type 'System.Security.Permissions.ReflectionPermission, mscorlib, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089'. What can I do to resolve this to work in IIS ? When I will publish it on web server, the error will get too :( Thanks Cheers

    Read the article

  • WCF DTO versions

    - by cvista
    Hi I have some services at the moment that return a dto with the following fields: [DataMember] public int Id { get; set; } [DataMember] public string Name { get; set; } and I want to add more to this service by adding the following properties: [DataMember] public virtual DateTime StartDate { get; set; } I'm not in a position where i can update the consumers of these services though - the client does that themselves. My question is - will the old clients be able to just skip these new properties? and the new ones take advantage of them or will the serialization be an issue with the new properties? w://

    Read the article

  • ViewModel updates after Model server roundtrip

    - by Pavel Savara
    I have stateless services and anemic domain objects on server side. Model between server and client is POCO DTO. The client should become MVVM. The model could be graph of about 100 instances of 20 different classes. The client editor contains diverse tab-pages all of them live-connected to model/viewmodel. My problem is how to propagate changes after server round-trip nice way. It's quite easy to propagate changes from ViewModel to DTO. For way back it would be possible to throw away old DTO and replace it whole with new one, but it will cause lot of redrawing for lists/DataTemplates. I could gather the server side changes and transmit them to client side. But the names of fields changed would be domain/DTO specific, not ViewModel specific. And the mapping seems nontrivial to me. If I should do it imperative way after round-trip, it would break SOC/modularity of viewModels. I'm thinking about some kind of mapping rule engine, something like automappper or emit mapper. But it solves just very plain use-cases. I don't see how it would map/propagate/convert adding items to list or removal. How to identify instances in collections so it could merge values to existing instances. As well it should propagate validation/error info. Maybe I should implement INotifyPropertyChanged on DTO and try to replay server side events on it ? And then bind ViewModel to it ? Would binding solve the problems with collection merges nice way ? Is EventAgregator from PRISM useful for that ? Is there any event record-replay component ? Is there better client side pattern for architecture with server side logic ?

    Read the article

  • MVVM pattern: ViewModel updates after Model server roundtrip

    - by Pavel Savara
    I have stateless services and anemic domain objects on server side. Model between server and client is POCO DTO. The client should become MVVM. The model could be graph of about 100 instances of 20 different classes. The client editor contains diverse tab-pages all of them live-connected to model/viewmodel. My problem is how to propagate changes after server round-trip nice way. It's quite easy to propagate changes from ViewModel to DTO. For way back it would be possible to throw away old DTO and replace it whole with new one, but it will cause lot of redrawing for lists/DataTemplates. I could gather the server side changes and transmit them to client side. But the names of fields changed would be domain/DTO specific, not ViewModel specific. And the mapping seems nontrivial to me. If I should do it imperative way after round-trip, it would break SOC/modularity of viewModels. I'm thinking about some kind of mapping rule engine, something like automappper or emit mapper. But it solves just very plain use-cases. I don't see how it would map/propagate/convert adding items to list or removal. How to identify instances in collections so it could merge values to existing instances. As well it should propagate validation/error info. Maybe I should implement INotifyPropertyChanged on DTO and try to replay server side events on it ? And then bind ViewModel to it ? Would binding solve the problems with collection merges nice way ? Is EventAgregator from PRISM useful for that ? Is there any event record-replay component ? Is there better client side pattern for architecture with server side logic ?

    Read the article

  • Converting DTOs to View Models

    - by illvm
    Does anyone know of a good (read: quick to code) method for converting DTOs to View Models or mapping DTO members to View Model members? Lately I've been finding myself writing many conversion and helper methods but this is a very arduous and tedious task. Moreover, it will often needs to be done twice (DTO - View Model, View Model - DTO). Is there a methodology, technique, or technology which would allow me to do this more quickly and efficiently?

    Read the article

  • Persistence classes in Qt

    - by zarzych
    Hi, I'm porting a medium-sized CRUD application from .Net to Qt and I'm looking for a pattern for creating persistence classes. In .Net I usually created abstract persistence class with basic methods (insert, update, delete, select) for example: public class DAOBase<T> { public T GetByPrimaryKey(object primaryKey) {...} public void DeleteByPrimaryKey(object primaryKey) {...} public List<T> GetByField(string fieldName, object value) {...} public void Insert(T dto) {...} public void Update(T dto) {...} } Then, I subclassed it for specific tables/DTOs and added attributes for DB table layout: [DBTable("note", "note_id", NpgsqlTypes.NpgsqlDbType.Integer)] [DbField("note_id", NpgsqlTypes.NpgsqlDbType.Integer, "NoteId")] [DbField("client_id", NpgsqlTypes.NpgsqlDbType.Integer, "ClientId")] [DbField("title", NpgsqlTypes.NpgsqlDbType.Text, "Title", "")] [DbField("body", NpgsqlTypes.NpgsqlDbType.Text, "Body", "")] [DbField("date_added", NpgsqlTypes.NpgsqlDbType.Date, "DateAdded")] class NoteDAO : DAOBase<NoteDTO> { } Thanks to .Net reflection system I was able to achieve heavy code reuse and easy creation of new ORMs. The simplest way to do this kind of stuff in Qt seems to be using model classes from QtSql module. Unfortunately, in my case they provide too abstract an interface. I need at least transactions support and control over individual commits which QSqlTableModel doesn't provide. Could you give me some hints about solving this problem using Qt or point me to some reference materials? Update: Based on Harald's clues I've implemented a solution that is quite similar to the .Net classes above. Now I have two classes. UniversalDAO that inherits QObject and deals with QObject DTOs using metatype system: class UniversalDAO : public QObject { Q_OBJECT public: UniversalDAO(QSqlDatabase dataBase, QObject *parent = 0); virtual ~UniversalDAO(); void insert(const QObject &dto); void update(const QObject &dto); void remove(const QObject &dto); void getByPrimaryKey(QObject &dto, const QVariant &key); }; And a generic SpecializedDAO that casts data obtained from UniversalDAO to appropriate type: template<class DTO> class SpecializedDAO { public: SpecializedDAO(UniversalDAO *universalDao) virtual ~SpecializedDAO() {} DTO defaultDto() const { return DTO; } void insert(DTO dto) { dao->insert(dto); } void update(DTO dto) { dao->update(dto); } void remove(DTO dto) { dao->remove(dto); } DTO getByPrimaryKey(const QVariant &key); }; Using the above, I declare the concrete DAO class as following: class ClientDAO : public QObject, public SpecializedDAO<ClientDTO> { Q_OBJECT public: ClientDAO(UniversalDAO *dao, QObject *parent = 0) : QObject(parent), SpecializedDAO<ClientDTO>(dao) {} }; From within ClientDAO I have to set some database information for UniversalDAO. That's where my implementation gets ugly because I do it like this: QMap<QString, QString> fieldMapper; fieldMapper["client_id"] = "clientId"; fieldMapper["name"] = "firstName"; /* ...all column <-> field pairs in here... */ dao->setFieldMapper(fieldMapper); dao->setTable("client"); dao->setPrimaryKey("client_id"); I do it in constructor so it's not visible at a first glance for someone browsing through the header. In .Net version it was easy to spot and understand. Do you have some ideas how I could make it better?

    Read the article

  • LINQ Query to filter DTO

    - by brabone
    I have an array...and I need to exclude all the items in this array of string from the masterList.customField as shown below string[] excludeItem = {"a","b","c"}; CustomDTO[] masterList = service.LoadMasterList(); masterList.Where(c=> masterList.customField NOT IN excludeItem How do I achieve the NOT IN part above?

    Read the article

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

    - by arrages
    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. 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

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  | Next Page >