Talk:Plain old Java object: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 10:31, 15 May 2013

Latest revision as of 00:12, 17 February 2024

(14 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject Javabanner shell|class=stubC|importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Brands|class=Java |importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Computing |importance=Low |science=y |science-importance=Low |java=y |java-importance=Low |software=y |software-importance=Low}}

}}

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:Plain old Java object/Archives/|format=Y|age=26297|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes}}

==Untitled==

My opinion is that any general restriction or requirement other than those forced by the Java Language Specification on the java objects to be used in a program makes those objects not POJOs and those programming environments not strictly POJO compliant.

In the case of annotations, requiring the existence of certain annotations is a restriction much like requiring the existence of certain methods. In addition, it also rules out the use of older versions of the JVM, including 1.4, which is still widely used in enterprise environments.

<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:124.87.141.114|124.87.141.114]] ([[User talk:124.87.141.114|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/124.87.141.114|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

----

I guess we can debate the meaning of 'restriction'. At the very least, however, we should make it clear that the restriction placed by annotations is different from that placed by interfaces and base classes. While it may be (to quote you) 'much like requiring existence of certain methods', it is not the same.

The crucial difference is that annotations place no ''runtime'' dependencies: if they did, annotated POJOs would be no more lightweight than implementing marker interfaces.

Please redo my change and/or update it to your liking to emphasise this distinction.

[[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)|<font style="background: #800080" face="Ariel" color="#FFFFFF">'''&nbsp;(aeropagitica)&nbsp;'''</font>]][[User talk:(aeropagitica)|<font style="background:#FFFFFF" face="Ariel" color="#800080">'''&nbsp;(talk)&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span> 22:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

== Please denote vernacular usage ==

This nomencalture is not part of a standard or specification. Please denote in the body of the article that such nomenclature should not be used in general and certainly not used in technical tests. (Common guys, you are going to crash planes with this stuff.)

<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:75.25.4.73|75.25.4.73]] ([[User talk:75.25.4.73|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/75.25.4.73|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

== Notability missing ==

Where is [[WP:NOTE|notability]] demonstrated for this subject?-- [[User:Mumia-w-18|Mumia-w-18]] 20:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

A search on Google for "Plain Old Java Object" (in quotes - that exact phrase) gave 41,400 hits; the same search on Google Scholar gave 146 hits. I think that the latter at least constitutes 'presumed notability'?-- Richard Pawson <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Rpawson|Rpawson]] ([[User talk:Rpawson|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rpawson|contribs]]) 09:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== EJB3 is not POJO ==

I do not understand how anyone can say this.

-> I need the javax.persistence imports to compile

-> The EJB3 annotations have runtime retention policy

EJB3 IS INVASIVE, not a DI POJO component model. If you can live with this go ahead, but don't tell its POJO. It does not even have dependency injection, it is a dependency lookup through annotations.

[http://adminsight.de/2007/11/20/btw-it-is-not-a-pojo/]

[http://adminsight.de/2007/11/20/it-is-dependency-lookup-not-injection/] <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/89.244.186.7|89.244.186.7]] ([[User talk:89.244.186.7|talk]]) 10:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== What? ==

"All Java objects are POJOs, therefore ideally speaking a POJO is a Java object ..."

What does this mean? Does POJO mean the same as 'java object' or not? I assume they do mean something different which means that not all java objects are POJOs. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.73.19.85|75.73.19.85]] ([[User talk:75.73.19.85|talk]]) 16:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: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 -->

== Special Object ==

The second sentence adds little to explanation of POJO. Merely saying that is it not a special object while not explaining what a special object or what it lacks that doesn't make it special doesn't clarify much to the reader:

"The name is used to emphasize that the object in question is an ordinary Java Object, not a special object, and in particular not an Enterprise JavaBean (especially before EJB 3)"

<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:207.171.180.101|207.171.180.101]] ([[User talk:207.171.180.101|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/207.171.180.101|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-->