Content deleted Content added
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) Archiving 6 discussions from Talk:Plain Old Java Object. (BOT) |
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion from Talk:Plain Old Java Object. (BOT) |
||
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-->
|