Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by Rpawson - "→Notability missing: " |
→EJB3 is not POJO: new section |
||
Line 24:
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/]
| |||