JavaBeans
A JavaBean is a class that follows the JavaBeans conventions as defined by Sun. Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of what JavaBeans are:
JavaBeans are reusable software components for Java that can be manipulated visually in a builder tool. Practically, they are classes written in the Java programming language conforming to a particular convention. They are used to encapsulate many objects into a single object (the bean), so that they can be passed around as a single bean object instead of as multiple individual objects. A JavaBean is a Java Object that is serializable, has a nullary constructor, and allows access to properties using getter and setter methods.
In order to function as a JavaBean class, an object class must obey certain conventions about method naming, construction, and behavior. These conventions make it possible to have tools that can use, reuse, replace, and connect JavaBeans.
The required conventions are:
- The class must have a public default constructor. This allows easy instantiation within editing and activation frameworks.
- The class properties must be accessible using get, set, and other methods (so-called accessor methods and mutator methods), following a standard naming convention. This allows easy automated inspection and updating of bean state within frameworks, many of which include custom editors for various types of properties.
- The class should be serializable. This allows applications and frameworks to reliably save, store, and restore the bean's state in a fashion that is independent of the VM and platform.
Because these requirements are largely expressed as conventions rather than by implementing interfaces, some developers view JavaBeans as Plain Old Java Objects that follow specific naming conventions.
POJO
A Plain Old Java Object or POJO is a term initially introduced to designate a simple lightweight Java object, not implementing any javax.ejb interface, as opposed to heavyweight EJB 2.x (especially Entity Beans, Stateless Session Beans are not that bad IMO). Today, the term is used for any simple object with no extra stuff. Again, Wikipedia does a good job at defining POJO:
POJO is an acronym for Plain Old Java Object. The name is used to emphasize that the object in question is an ordinary Java Object, not a special object, and in particular not an Enterprise JavaBean (especially before EJB 3). The term was coined by Martin Fowler, Rebecca Parsons and Josh MacKenzie in September 2000:
"We wondered why people were so against using regular objects in their systems and concluded that it was because simple objects lacked a fancy name. So we gave them one, and it's caught on very nicely."
The term continues the pattern of older terms for technologies that do not use fancy new features, such as POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) in telephony, and PODS (Plain Old Data Structures) that are defined in C++ but use only C language features, and POD (Plain Old Documentation) in Perl.
The term has most likely gained widespread acceptance because of the need for a common and easily understood term that contrasts with complicated object frameworks. A JavaBean is a POJO that is serializable, has a no-argument constructor, and allows access to properties using getter and setter methods. An Enterprise JavaBean is not a single class but an entire component model (again, EJB 3 reduces the complexity of Enterprise JavaBeans).
As designs using POJOs have become more commonly-used, systems have arisen that give POJOs some of the functionality used in frameworks and more choice about which areas of functionality are actually needed. Hibernate and Spring are examples.
Value Object
A Value Object or VO is an object such as java.lang.Integer that hold values (hence value objects). For a more formal definition, I often refer to Martin Fowler's description of Value Object:
In Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture I described Value Object as a small object such as a Money or date range object. Their key property is that they follow value semantics rather than reference semantics.
You can usually tell them because their notion of equality isn't based on identity, instead two value objects are equal if all their fields are equal. Although all fields are equal, you don't need to compare all fields if a subset is unique - for example currency codes for currency objects are enough to test equality.
A general heuristic is that value objects should be entirely immutable. If you want to change a value object you should replace the object with a new one and not be allowed to update the values of the value object itself - updatable value objects lead to aliasing problems.
Early J2EE literature used the term value object to describe a different notion, what I call a Data Transfer Object. They have since changed their usage and use the term Transfer Object instead.
You can find some more good material on value objects on the wiki and by Dirk Riehle.
Data Transfer Object
Data Transfer Object or DTO is a (anti) pattern introduced with EJB. Instead of performing many remote calls on EJBs, the idea was to encapsulate data in a value object that could be transfered over the network: a Data Transfer Object. Wikipedia has a decent definition of Data Transfer Object:
Data transfer object (DTO), formerly known as value objects or VO, is a design pattern used to transfer data between software application subsystems. DTOs are often used in conjunction with data access objects to retrieve data from a database.
The difference between data transfer objects and business objects or data access objects is that a DTO does not have any behaviour except for storage and retrieval of its own data (accessors and mutators).
In a traditional EJB architecture, DTOs serve dual purposes: first, they work around the problem that entity beans are not serializable; second, they implicitly define an assembly phase where all data to be used by the view is fetched and marshalled into the DTOs before returning control to the presentation tier.
So, for many people, DTOs and VOs are the same thing (but Fowler uses VOs to mean something else as we saw). Most of time, they follow the JavaBeans conventions and are thus JavaBeans too. And all are POJOs.
Answer from Pascal Thivent on Stack OverflowJavaBeans
A JavaBean is a class that follows the JavaBeans conventions as defined by Sun. Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of what JavaBeans are:
JavaBeans are reusable software components for Java that can be manipulated visually in a builder tool. Practically, they are classes written in the Java programming language conforming to a particular convention. They are used to encapsulate many objects into a single object (the bean), so that they can be passed around as a single bean object instead of as multiple individual objects. A JavaBean is a Java Object that is serializable, has a nullary constructor, and allows access to properties using getter and setter methods.
In order to function as a JavaBean class, an object class must obey certain conventions about method naming, construction, and behavior. These conventions make it possible to have tools that can use, reuse, replace, and connect JavaBeans.
The required conventions are:
- The class must have a public default constructor. This allows easy instantiation within editing and activation frameworks.
- The class properties must be accessible using get, set, and other methods (so-called accessor methods and mutator methods), following a standard naming convention. This allows easy automated inspection and updating of bean state within frameworks, many of which include custom editors for various types of properties.
- The class should be serializable. This allows applications and frameworks to reliably save, store, and restore the bean's state in a fashion that is independent of the VM and platform.
Because these requirements are largely expressed as conventions rather than by implementing interfaces, some developers view JavaBeans as Plain Old Java Objects that follow specific naming conventions.
POJO
A Plain Old Java Object or POJO is a term initially introduced to designate a simple lightweight Java object, not implementing any javax.ejb interface, as opposed to heavyweight EJB 2.x (especially Entity Beans, Stateless Session Beans are not that bad IMO). Today, the term is used for any simple object with no extra stuff. Again, Wikipedia does a good job at defining POJO:
POJO is an acronym for Plain Old Java Object. The name is used to emphasize that the object in question is an ordinary Java Object, not a special object, and in particular not an Enterprise JavaBean (especially before EJB 3). The term was coined by Martin Fowler, Rebecca Parsons and Josh MacKenzie in September 2000:
"We wondered why people were so against using regular objects in their systems and concluded that it was because simple objects lacked a fancy name. So we gave them one, and it's caught on very nicely."
The term continues the pattern of older terms for technologies that do not use fancy new features, such as POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) in telephony, and PODS (Plain Old Data Structures) that are defined in C++ but use only C language features, and POD (Plain Old Documentation) in Perl.
The term has most likely gained widespread acceptance because of the need for a common and easily understood term that contrasts with complicated object frameworks. A JavaBean is a POJO that is serializable, has a no-argument constructor, and allows access to properties using getter and setter methods. An Enterprise JavaBean is not a single class but an entire component model (again, EJB 3 reduces the complexity of Enterprise JavaBeans).
As designs using POJOs have become more commonly-used, systems have arisen that give POJOs some of the functionality used in frameworks and more choice about which areas of functionality are actually needed. Hibernate and Spring are examples.
Value Object
A Value Object or VO is an object such as java.lang.Integer that hold values (hence value objects). For a more formal definition, I often refer to Martin Fowler's description of Value Object:
In Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture I described Value Object as a small object such as a Money or date range object. Their key property is that they follow value semantics rather than reference semantics.
You can usually tell them because their notion of equality isn't based on identity, instead two value objects are equal if all their fields are equal. Although all fields are equal, you don't need to compare all fields if a subset is unique - for example currency codes for currency objects are enough to test equality.
A general heuristic is that value objects should be entirely immutable. If you want to change a value object you should replace the object with a new one and not be allowed to update the values of the value object itself - updatable value objects lead to aliasing problems.
Early J2EE literature used the term value object to describe a different notion, what I call a Data Transfer Object. They have since changed their usage and use the term Transfer Object instead.
You can find some more good material on value objects on the wiki and by Dirk Riehle.
Data Transfer Object
Data Transfer Object or DTO is a (anti) pattern introduced with EJB. Instead of performing many remote calls on EJBs, the idea was to encapsulate data in a value object that could be transfered over the network: a Data Transfer Object. Wikipedia has a decent definition of Data Transfer Object:
Data transfer object (DTO), formerly known as value objects or VO, is a design pattern used to transfer data between software application subsystems. DTOs are often used in conjunction with data access objects to retrieve data from a database.
The difference between data transfer objects and business objects or data access objects is that a DTO does not have any behaviour except for storage and retrieval of its own data (accessors and mutators).
In a traditional EJB architecture, DTOs serve dual purposes: first, they work around the problem that entity beans are not serializable; second, they implicitly define an assembly phase where all data to be used by the view is fetched and marshalled into the DTOs before returning control to the presentation tier.
So, for many people, DTOs and VOs are the same thing (but Fowler uses VOs to mean something else as we saw). Most of time, they follow the JavaBeans conventions and are thus JavaBeans too. And all are POJOs.
DTO vs VO
DTO - Data Transfer Object is just a data container which is used to transport data between layers and tiers.
- It mainly contains attributes. You can even use public attributes without getters and setters.
- Data Transfer Objects do not contain any business logic.
Analogy:
Simple registration form with attributes username, password and email ID.
- When this form is submitted in
RegistrationServletfile you will get all the attributes from view layer to business layer where you pass the attributes to java beans and then to the DAO or the persistence layer.- DTO helps in transporting the attributes from view layer to business layer and finally to the persistence layer.
DTO was mainly used to get data transported across the network efficiently, it may be even from JVM to another JVM.
DTOs are often java.io.Serializable - in order to transfer data across JVM.
VO - Value Object [1][2] represents a fixed set of data and is similar to a Java enum. A Value Object's identity is based on their state rather than on their object identity and is immutable. A real world example would be Color.RED, Color.BLUE, SEX.FEMALE etc.
POJO vs JavaBeans
[1] The "Java-Beanness" of a POJO is that its private attributes are all accessed via public getters and setters that conform to the JavaBeans conventions. e.g.
private String foo;
public String getFoo() {...}
public void setFoo(String foo) {...};
[2]
JavaBeans must implement Serializable and have a no-argument constructor, whereas in POJO does not have these restrictions.
Differences between Java bean, entity class, DAO, POJO, EJB and DTO?
java - What is the difference between a JavaBean and a POJO? - Stack Overflow
java - What is the point of using DTO (Data Transfer Objects)? - Software Engineering Stack Exchange
¿Diferencias entre Java bean, clase entidad, DAO, POJO, EJB y DTO?
Videos
I am learning Java EE and spring but I got confused with these terms From my understanding, DAO should contain all database access logic (sql and ORM code should place here) . But what's use of DTO? EJB ,POJO and model class are identical?
A JavaBean follows certain conventions. Getter/setter naming, having a public default constructor, being serialisable etc. See JavaBeans Conventions for more details.
A POJO (plain-old-Java-object) isn't rigorously defined. It's a Java object that doesn't have a requirement to implement a particular interface or derive from a particular base class, or make use of particular annotations in order to be compatible with a given framework, and can be any arbitrary (often relatively simple) Java object.
All JavaBeans are POJOs but not all POJOs are JavaBeans.
A JavaBean is a Java object that satisfies certain programming conventions:
- the JavaBean class must implement either Serializable or Externalizable;
- the JavaBean class must have a public no-arg constructor;
- all JavaBean properties must have public setter and getter methods (as appropriate);
- all JavaBean instance variables should be private.
DTO is a pattern and it is implementation (POJO/POCO) independent. DTO says, since each call to any remote interface is expensive, response to each call should bring as much data as possible. So, if multiple requests are required to bring data for a particular task, data to be brought can be combined in a DTO so that only one request can bring all the required data. Catalog of Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture has more details.
DTO's are a fundamental concept, not outdated.
DTO as a concept (objects whose purpose is to collect data to be returned to the client by the server) is certainly not outdated.
What is somewhat outdated is the notion of having DTOs that contain no logic at all, are used only for transmitting data and "mapped" from domain objects before transmission to the client, and there mapped to view models before passing them to the display layer. In simple applications, the domain objects can often be directly reused as DTOs and passed through directly to the display layer, so that there is only one unified data model. For more complex applications you don't want to expose the entire domain model to the client, so a mapping from domain models to DTOs is necessary. Having a separate view model that duplicates the data from the DTOs almost never makes sense.
However, the reason why this notion is outdated rather than just plain wrong is that some (mainly older) frameworks/technologies require it, as their domain and view models are not POJOS and instead tied directly to the framework.
Most notably, Entity Beans in J2EE prior to the EJB 3 standard were not POJOs and instead were proxy objects constructed by the app server - it was simply not possible to send them to the client, so you had no choice about haing a separate DTO layer - it was mandatory.