james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steve Brewin" <sbre...@synsys.com>
Subject RE: [RESULT] [VOTE] POJO pattern
Date Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:22:39 GMT
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > > Result after 24 hours,
> > 24 hours! Where did it say that?
> Don't take it too strongly.  Most votes go a minimum of 72,
> and you can veto
> code change at any time.

Not taking it strongly at all. Always wondered what a pregnant chad felt
like :)

Had it been clear that I had 24 hours I may have responded sooner. As all
responses are public my early response may have affected the vote. In this
case I doubt it. I had already stated that POJOifcation was more important
than POJOifcation style and therefore was always going to vote +1 (OK, +0.75
if SDI specific).


> I think that you and I can probably agree from this point towards a
> solution, based upon your code example.

Cool. IMHO the most important thing is to avoid locking ourselves into a
specific container model ever again. Thats what adapters are for. My code
example is one way of achieving this. The core POJO avoids public contracts
on the operations (Java methods). The public contract is for the adapters to
provide. We can have .sdi, .cdi, .ejb, .whatever adapters extending or
wrapping (in extremis) the core POJO behaviour.

In answer to Danny's suggestion to maybe make a proposal based on my sample
code. I could, and will if people think this is the best route, but there
may be neater ways of achieving this. In Noel speak, these are the "details,
details, details" that I think we should discuss.


-- Steve

To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org

View raw message