Support Forums: Message List - POJOs 2.0 - Early Draft http://www.theserverside.com Most recent forum messages en Jive Forums Silver 5.5.30 (www.jivesoftware.com) Thu, 23 May 2013 02:14:01 -0400 Re: POJOs 2.0 - Early Draft http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=32136
First of all, I don't know what you're talking about when you say "It is OK if my item doesn't get published because you don't like." I have no control over what gets published anywhere. I have a hard enough time getting my own...]]> Mon, 07 Mar 2005 23:29:29 -0500 Mon, 07 Mar 2005 23:29:29 -0500 Mon, 07 Mar 2005 23:29:29 -0500 Mar 7, 2005 James Carman 0 Sun to hijack POJO definition http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=32136
For the third time, POJOs are not subject to:
 - interface implementation conventions
 - naming conventions
 - getter/setter conventions
 - member visibility restrictions
 - code annotation...]]> Sat, 05 Mar 2005 03:22:44 -0500 Sat, 05 Mar 2005 03:22:44 -0500 Sat, 05 Mar 2005 03:22:44 -0500 Mar 5, 2005 Klaus Wuestefeld 0 The real problem - reading comprehension http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=32136
Here's the problem: they are not defining a POJO spec. They are defining a persistence spec around POJOs.

Note use of the word "persistence" in...]]> Fri, 04 Mar 2005 17:26:51 -0500 Fri, 04 Mar 2005 17:26:51 -0500 Fri, 04 Mar 2005 17:26:51 -0500 Mar 4, 2005 Mike Spille 1 Re: POJOs 2.0 - Early Draft http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=32136
Thanks for your reply.
I don't think they're hijacking the definition of POJO at all. They aren't trying to redefine what POJOs are. They're merely trying to come up with a new specification for persisting...]]> Fri, 04 Mar 2005 16:13:14 -0500 Fri, 04 Mar 2005 16:13:14 -0500 Fri, 04 Mar 2005 16:13:14 -0500 Mar 4, 2005 Klaus Wuestefeld 1 Re: POJOs 2.0 - Early Draft http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=32136 I don't think they're hijacking the definition of POJO at all. They aren't trying to redefine what POJOs are. They're merely trying to come up with a new specification for persisting POJOs.]]> Wed, 02 Mar 2005 18:49:36 -0500 Wed, 02 Mar 2005 18:49:36 -0500 Wed, 02 Mar 2005 18:49:36 -0500 Mar 2, 2005 James Carman 2 POJOs 2.0 - Early Draft http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=32136
Instead of calling it "The Standard Java Persistence API" though, Linda DeMichiel and Craig Russell, decided to call it "The POJO Persistence Model" in...]]> Sun, 27 Feb 2005 03:33:54 -0500 Sun, 27 Feb 2005 03:33:54 -0500 Sun, 27 Feb 2005 03:33:54 -0500 Feb 27, 2005 Klaus Wuestefeld 5