Commit : Documentation Added for Reference

Author: manojsatna31

BestPraticesAndPerformenceComparision.md

@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+## **Performance Considerations and Comparisons**
+
+One of the key advantages of MapStruct is its exceptional performance, which stems from its compile-time code generation
+approach. Unlike some other mapping libraries that rely on runtime reflection, MapStruct generates plain Java method
+invocations for mapping properties, resulting in very fast execution speeds. In many cases, the generated code is
+comparable in performance to hand-written mapping code. This compile-time generation avoids the performance overhead
+associated with runtime reflection, which is a characteristic of libraries like ModelMapper. Micro-benchmarks have
+consistently shown MapStruct to have some of the best average working times among various Java mapping frameworks. The
+compile-time type safety offered by MapStruct also contributes to performance by catching potential mapping errors early
+in the development cycle, reducing the risk of runtime exceptions. When comparing MapStruct with other popular mapping
+frameworks, ModelMapper is often cited. While ModelMapper can be easier to use for very basic mappings due to its
+reliance on conventions and reflection, it generally exhibits slower performance compared to MapStruct because of this
+runtime reflection. Furthermore, ModelMapper might become more challenging to maintain when dealing with complex mapping
+logic. Other frameworks like Dozer and Orika also exist. Dozer, which uses reflection, is generally considered slower
+than MapStruct. Orika, utilizing bytecode generation, offers better performance than Dozer but typically falls behind
+MapStruct in speed. Selma is another compile-time code generation framework similar to MapStruct and is also known for
+its high performance. The fundamental difference between compile-time and runtime mapping frameworks has significant
+performance implications. MapStruct's compile-time approach means that the efficient mapping code is generated once
+during the build process, leading to faster and more predictable runtime execution. Runtime mapping frameworks, on the
+other hand, perform the mapping logic every time it's executed, which can introduce overhead, especially in scenarios
+involving frequent mapping operations. The performance advantage of MapStruct, rooted in its compile-time code
+generation, makes it a compelling choice for applications where speed and efficiency are paramount. While ModelMapper
+might offer initial simplicity, MapStruct's explicit nature and compile-time checks can lead to better long-term
+maintainability and fewer runtime issues, particularly for complex mappings. The availability of benchmarks comparing
+MapStruct with other frameworks provides empirical evidence supporting its performance claims.
+
+| Feature | MapStruct | ModelMapper | Dozer | Orika |
+|:--------------------|:--------------------------------------|:------------------------------------|:-----------------------------|:-----------------------------------------|
+| Mapping Mechanism | Compile-time code generation | Reflection | Reflection | Bytecode generation |
+| Performance | High | Can be slower due to reflection | Slower | Faster than Dozer, slower than MapStruct |
+| Type Safety | Strong compile-time checks | Limited compile-time checks | Limited compile-time checks | Limited compile-time checks |
+| Ease of Use | Requires more initial setup | Generally easier for basic mappings | Relatively easy to use | Moderate |
+| Customization | Extensive options through annotations | Flexible configuration options | XML-based configuration | Extensive configuration options |
+| Reflection Usage | No runtime reflection | Relies heavily on reflection | Relies heavily on reflection | Uses bytecode generation |
+| Compile-time Checks | Yes | No | No | No |
+
+## **Best Practices for Using MapStruct**
+
+To effectively leverage the power of MapStruct, adhering to certain best practices is recommended. When designing mapper
+interfaces, consider creating a generic BaseMapper interface that defines common mapping methods like toDto and
+toEntity. Specific mapper interfaces for each entity/DTO pair can then extend this base interface, promoting code reuse
+and consistency.28
+
+**Example (Base Mapper Interface):**
+
+```Java
+import org.mapstruct.Mapper;
+
+public interface BaseMapper<E, D> {
+ D toDto(E entity);
+
+ E toEntity(D dto);
+}
+
+@Mapper(componentModel = "spring")
+public interface UserMapper extends BaseMapper<User, UserDTO> {
+// Specific mapping methods if needed 
+}
+```
+
+Organizing mapper files within a dedicated package, such as mapper, helps maintain a clean and well-structured
+codebase.28 In Spring applications, it's best practice to inject mapper interfaces into services using constructor
+injection, which promotes immutability and makes dependencies explicit.28 Take full advantage of MapStruct's automatic
+mapping capabilities for fields with identical names and compatible types to minimize the need for explicit
+configurations.28 For complex mapping scenarios, utilize the various attributes of the @Mapping annotation, such as
+source, target, expression, defaultExpression, and dateFormat, to handle intricate field mappings. Employ @BeforeMapping
+and @AfterMapping annotations to implement pre- and post-processing logic as needed.8 When dealing with ambiguous
+mapping situations where multiple methods could apply, use qualifiers like @Qualifier or @Named to explicitly specify
+the desired mapping method.4 For mapping collections, ensure that a corresponding mapping method exists for the
+individual elements within the collection.19 Consider using the @MappingTarget annotation when updating existing objects
+is required, rather than always creating new instances.9 Testing MapStruct mappers is straightforward because the
+generated implementations are concrete classes.29 You can easily instantiate the generated mapper and write unit tests
+to verify the mapping logic with sample data. For better code organization and maintainability, keep DTOs simple and
+focused on data transfer.28 Use clear and descriptive names for mapper interfaces and methods. Leverage MapStruct's
+compile-time checks to catch mapping errors early in the development process. If DTOs or entities are subject to
+frequent changes, MapStruct's automatic code generation can significantly aid in adapting to these changes quickly.28
+Finally, it's a good practice to utilize the unmappedTargetPolicy and unmappedSourcePolicy configuration options to
+ensure that all relevant fields are mapped and to avoid unintended data loss or unexpected behavior.24 Setting the
+policy to "ERROR" can be particularly beneficial in many applications. Adopting a structured approach to designing
+mapper interfaces and organizing mapper files enhances the maintainability and readability of the mapping code,
+especially in large projects. The ease with which MapStruct mappers can be unit tested is a significant advantage for
+ensuring the correctness and reliability of data transformation processes. Utilizing MapStruct's configuration options,
+such as the policies for unmapped target and source properties, serves as a valuable safeguard against common
+mapping-related issues, promoting data integrity.