Talk:Plain old Java object: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 06:56, 3 March 2016

Revision as of 23:51, 23 April 2016

Line 1:

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

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