If you have complex objects that you need to map, you might need to write configuration files. To be honest, I don´t know what´s meant by "complex objects", I don´t have any configuration files at all for my Dozer implementation, and it works like a charm, even when mapping nested objects.
I have my DTOs on the client side aswell, by I´m not the one to answer your security question. Our application is only used inhouse. On 2 Sep, 19:38, Tolga Özdemir <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, hmm it sounds good.. > I downloaded a sample gwt project with dozer (the music store)..When I look > at the file structure, I noticed that this sample contains all mapping files > and DTOs.. Including I have to write a dozer map file.. > > In my own sample project I did the same putting my DTOs into the client side > directly without dozer map but it still works... > > I wonder what dozer gives me as an advantage - it seems it does not > guarantee writing less config files? is it a security issue that we do not > to put DTOs in client side in dozer project? > > Thanks, > > Tolga > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Dalla <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yes, exactly. > > > This is pretty much it: > > > DozerBeanMapper mapper = new DozerBeanMapper(); > > > //This is a mapping from EJB to POJO > > //SimpleHeader is my POJO, purchaseOrderHeader is an instance of the > > corresponding EJB. > > SimpleHeader header = (SimpleHeader) mapper.map(purchaseOrderHeader, > > SimpleHeader.class); > > > //Mapping from POJO back to EJB looks exactly the same > > //Here, Arrivals is the EJB, arrivaldata is an instance of the > > corresponding POJO > > Arrivals arrivals = (Arrivals) mapper.map(arrivaldata, > > Arrivals.class); > > > So if you already have EJBs and want to use Dozer, all you have to do > > is basically make a copy of your EJB, remove all annotations > > and imports of javax.* packages, create a default no argument > > constructor, and make the new POJO implement IsSerializable. > > > On 2 Sep, 14:19, Tolga Özdemir <[email protected]> wrote: > > > hmm.. you mean your EJB classes - your DTOs - are in serverside and by > > using > > > dozer.. you automatically translate them and use in client side, right? > > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Dalla <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Correct, not on the client side anyway. > > > > GWT does not emulate javax.persistence.*, importing that package on > > > > the client side would cause errors when compiling. > > > > However you COULD use EJB3, if you keep the mappings in a separate > > > > file. But´s that´s not very flexible. > > > > > I use EJB3 myself on the server side, and then use Dozer to convert > > > > the EJBs to POJOs before sending them to the client. > > > > Once the objects is sent back, you convert it back to an EJB, Works > > > > like a charm so far. > > > > > On 2 Sep, 13:26, Tolga Özdemir <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > oh..it does mean we cannot use ejb3 yet.. right? > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:13 PM, David Given <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > tolga ozdemir wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > Can you enlighten me wheather we could use javax.persistence.* in > > our > > > > > > > serialized DTO objects for the sake of RPC?? > > > > > > > > can I use @Table, @Id or other annotations? > > > > > > > The GWT runtime ignores annotations --- they're not kept at runtime > > on > > > > > > the client. So you can pass annotated objects perfectly happily > > over > > > > the > > > > > > link and they'll work fine. > > > > > > > I've had good experiences using Berkeley DB JE and GWT. It's > > possible > > > > to > > > > > > query an object on the server, have Berkeley DB instantiate it for > > me, > > > > > > and then just return it directly to the client for display. So I'd > > > > > > imagine you could use something similar with javax.persistence. > > > > > > > The only thing you probably need to be concerned with is that if > > you > > > > > > instantiate an object on the server, pass it to the client, then > > pass > > > > it > > > > > > back to the server, you're getting a different physical object than > > the > > > > > > one you originally instantiated so the persistence layer might get > > its > > > > > > cacheing confused. (Berkeley DB doesn't seem to be bothered by > > this.) > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > ┌─── ｄｇ＠ｃｏｗｌａｒｋ．ｃｏｍ ─────http://www.cowlark.com───── > > > > > > │ > > > > > > │ "They laughed at Newton. They laughed at Einstein. Of course, > > they > > > > > > │ also laughed at Bozo the Clown." --- Carl Sagan > > > > > > -- > > > > > Tolga Özdemir > > > > > > Mobile 0 536 963 7890 > > > > > MSN [email protected] Dölj citerad text - > > > > > > - Visa citerad text - > > > > -- > > > Tolga Özdemir > > > > Mobile 0 536 963 7890 > > > MSN [email protected] Dölj citerad text - > > > > - Visa citerad text - > > -- > Tolga Özdemir > > Mobile 0 536 963 7890 > MSN [email protected] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
