Talk:Plain old Java object: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:51, 23 April 2016

Latest revision as of 00:12, 17 February 2024

(7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject Javabanner shell|class=StartC|importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Java |importance=Low}}

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

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

}}

== Special Object ==

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

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 -->

Also you could call Special Objects "SPEJO", instead of SoJO, where the oh seems to come from nowhere, but whatever; this just crossed my mind and probably nobody uses SPEJO anyways.

[[User:Pupitetris|Pupitetris]] ([[User talk:Pupitetris|talk]]) 19:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

== 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-->

== Transparently adding services ==

The title is not clear. What does it mean: "the services that are adding transparently", "the transparent process of adding services", or something else?

== Definition ==

The Definition section outlines 3 things a POJO should not do:

# Extend prespecified classes.

# Implement prespecified interfaces.

# Contain prespecified annotations.

What is the source for these requirements? Also, in what sense is "prespecified" being used? What makes an annotation prespecified as such - does it mean a requirement imposed by an external framework?

[[User:Jonhanson|jon]] ([[User talk:Jonhanson|talk]]) 20:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)