geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Wilkins <gr...@mortbay.com>
Subject Re: [XML][Deployment]POJO design?
Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 08:50:40 GMT



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.

Eg. If we don't have a common geronimo.ejb.EJB class for Session, Entity
and Message, then we can't write any code that deals with these beans in
common - eg we are going to have to write the marshalling code 3 times, etc. etc.

If the geronimo classes don't implement/extend the standard classes then
we can't pass them into any class that takes the standard classes.

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

whatever.... I give up









Mime
View raw message