Talk:Plain old Java object/Archives/2013: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:51, 23 April 2016

Latest revision as of 07:11, 18 September 2023

(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 15:

[[User:Kennardconsulting|Kennardconsulting]] 01:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

== AfD discussion ==

[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plain Old Java Object]] <span style="border: 1px solid #800080;">[[User:(aeropagitica)|<fontspan style="backgroundcolor: #800080"FFFFFF; font-family: face="Ariel"; background: color="#FFFFFF800080">'''&nbsp;(aeropagitica)&nbsp;'''</fontspan>]][[User talk:(aeropagitica)|<fontspan style="backgroundcolor: #FFFFFF"800080; font-family: face="Ariel"; color="background:#800080FFFFFF">'''&nbsp;(talk)&nbsp;'''</fontspan>]]</span> 22:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

== Please denote vernacular usage ==

Line 47:

:Well, unless '''not''' all POJOS are java objects, but that doesn't make sense. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:75.73.19.85|75.73.19.85]] ([[User talk:75.73.19.85|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/75.73.19.85|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

== JavaBeans are not POJO. "Contextual variations" chapter misleading? ==

I have objections as to JavaBeans being listed as a "variation" of a POJO object. The definition in the first section says ''The term "POJO" is mainly used to denote a Java object which does not follow any of the major Java object models, conventions, or frameworks''. By that definition, a JavaBean is not a POJO object (or a variation of it), since it introduces coding convention. I suggest the entire chapter is removed as it only causes confusion. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Nilzor|Nilzor]] ([[User talk:Nilzor|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nilzor|contribs]]) 10:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->