A JPA entity class leaks a lot of implementation detail, for example that you’re using JPA, what field maps to which database column, all sorts of mess. A good API type doesn’t make this sort of decision, the implementation should be free to use JPA, JDBC, Mongo, or whatever.
This is why it’s usually a good idea to use clean DTOs for data transfer. Best Regards, Tim > On 23 Jul 2018, at 14:03, Christian Schneider <[email protected]> wrote: > > In very simple cases it is possible to transfer JPA entities but it is not a > good practice to do so. > > For a remote service it makes sense to have a separate DTO. Often you can > also tailor the DTO to the use case of the remote service. Like in the > service facade pattern. > > Christian > > Am Mo., 23. Juli 2018 um 14:53 Uhr schrieb ceugster > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>: > So if I get it right, I have theoretically two classes for Car, an entity Car > and a DTO Car. Both have same fields and getters/setters. and as next step I > use one class (instead of interface) car, that is used for both? Or is it > better to separate each implementation (jpa entity and data transfer > object)? > > > > -- > Sent from: http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/Karaf-User-f930749.html > <http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/Karaf-User-f930749.html> > > > -- > -- > Christian Schneider > http://www.liquid-reality.de <http://www.liquid-reality.de/> > > Computer Scientist > http://www.adobe.com <http://www.adobe.com/> >
