geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Blewitt <Alex.Blew...@ioshq.com>
Subject Re: [XML][Deployment]POJO design?
Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 10:26:35 GMT
On Tuesday, Sep 9, 2003, at 09:50 Europe/London, Greg Wilkins wrote:

> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 02:02 AM, Greg Wilkins wrote:
>>> Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>>> > I think a concrete class hierarchy is easiest here, with the 
>>> Geronimo
>>> > POJOs extending the Standard ones. That way tools can work with 
>>> standard
>>> > objects or geronimo objects as they like (provided they remain
>>> > consistent) - this fits Aaron's use cases and I think simplifies 
>>> the
>>> > structure.
>>>
>>> That approach is going to result in some really ugly duplication
>>> of code and hundreds of extra implementation methods.
>> My god Greg, get a real IDE, and click the implement interface 
>> button, or click the delegate button and done with it.
>
> you're joking right???
>
> This is not just about code duplication - I was just responding to the
> suggestion that my proposal is more complex or more code. The main 
> issue
> that I started talking about is that the type hierarchy is wrong.

I'd agree completely with Greg's view here. It's not about inheritance 
for the sake of it; it's about getting the type hierarchy right.

This can also be achieved with interfaces rather than classes, but I 
don't see the rationale for not having an abstract supertype for the 
Session/Entity/Message beans. [It may be necessary to also have a 
separate supertype for Session/Entity as well, since there are such 
issues with the way in which the various Contexts work.]

> So I am not proposing change based on code volume - I'm proposing 
> change
> because the design is currently not correct.

+1

Alex.


Mime
View raw message