Persistence Object Naming Convention

Question

I have some POCOs and there are corresponding persistence objects that do the CRUD. What is a good name for the persistence objects? I've seen people use the term "service objects" for these, but when I think service, I think WCF. Maybe "persistence objects" is the best, but I'd like to hear what other people think.

Answer 1

One common convention is the Repository pattern when dealing with persisting objects to a datastore, so you would expect to see naming conventions in the form of (given an corresponding type Poco):

PocoRepository

Answer 2

I believe you are thinking of a Data Transfer Object.

Answer 3

Data Transfer Objects, or DTO's, is a common way to refer to these objects.

See Martin Fowler's definition: http://martinfowler.com/eaaCatalog/dataTransferObject.html

Answer 4

Perhaps just adding "persistor" to the name, like Person_persistor etc, if the persistence objects just are used for persisting.

Answer 5

I use the following conventions:

• <YourName>: The domain class you want to persist. (e.g. User)
• <YourName(pluralized)>Repository: The class which persist/store your domain class. (e.g. UsersRepository)
• Persitent<YourName> (optional): The class which is really persisted/stored. (Your repository should take your domain class and map it to this persistent model before saving it.) (Could be located in a PersistentModels folder.)

Answer 6

I believe "Entities" is a commonly used and traditional name.