geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Strachan <>
Subject Re: [XML][Deployment]POJO design?
Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 09:56:13 GMT
What is the use case for having 'standard' beans separate from geronimo 
beans - on't we just need Geronimo beans? i.e. it seems very complex to 
have 2 separate trees of standard J2EE descriptors and another tree of 
geronimo-extended J2EE descriptor beans. This leads to a messy 
dual-inheritence hierarchy that Greg's brought up.

But this is the Geronimo project - so do we need to support both of 
these things? i.e. can't we just have a simple POJO hierarchy which 
merges the standard + geronimo POJOs together for simplicity? It'll be 
much easier, take less code & require much less testing of the 
marshalling code.

So I'd like to understand the use case for why we can't just have POJOs 
for Geronimo's descriptors - afterall all the additional Geronimo 
properties can just be ignored when working with just standard J2EE 
descriptor stuff.

On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 09:50  am, 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.
> 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


View raw message