Description

earizon

opened on Oct 28, 2024

Issue body actions

Use case

Java Beans was designed with the first versions of Java around 1996. It looks to me that Java newcomers that have randomly read about Java development and Java Beans will randomly ignore the existence of the "alternative" Java Records. Also, beans are so "pervasive" in Java literature that there is a traction to continue using them by pure "inertia". A brief comparative in README.md can help clarify concepts. Both of them generate static safe code. Records are simpler to use and promote safe immutable data (data "dominates" over behavior), while Beans help in more complex scenarios for which the internal data structures and states will evolve over time (behavior "dominates" over data).
As of 2024-10 I guess the best approach is to use records for "simple data code". Fall back to MapStruct when Records just fall short.
Said otherwise, try to avoid people using Beans when Records "just work".

Generated Code

N/A

Possible workarounds

N/A.

MapStruct Version

No response

Activity

1. filiphr

   added

   documentation

   on Nov 3, 2024
2. filiphr

   modified the milestones: 1.7.0, 1.6.3 on Nov 3, 2024
3. filiphr commented on Nov 3, 2024

   

   filiphr

   on Nov 3, 2024

   Member

   More actions

   That's a good point @earizon. I'll try to work a bit on the wording.

   MapStruct in the end is for data mapping. Whether your data is done with beans, DTOs, builders, records does not make difference to MapStruct.

   Records are simpler to use and promote safe immutable data (data "dominates" over behavior),

   Here I am also a bit vary as the data is immutable if the passed objects are immutable.

   e.g.

   record Customer(String name, List<Address> addresses)

   The example above is not immutable as List on its own is mutable.
4. filiphr

   added a commit that references this issue on Nov 9, 2024

   mapstruct#3751 Improve readme to include support for Java 16+ records

   0a53c5c
5. filiphr commented on Nov 9, 2024

   

   filiphr

   on Nov 9, 2024

   Member

   More actions

   @earizon does #3762 make sense to you?
6. filiphr

   closed this as completedin #3762on Nov 9, 2024
7. filiphr

   added a commit that references this issue on Nov 9, 2024

   #3751 Improve readme to include support for Java 16+ records

   efdf435
8. earizon commented on Nov 11, 2024

   

   earizon

   on Nov 11, 2024

   Author

   More actions

   @earizon does #3762 make sense to you?

   Yes it does! I owe you a coffee!

   Reacted by Filip Hrisafov

Issue actions