While it may not be explicit, its definitely required. Otherwise the lifecycle model of design-time and run-time doesn't work, for example. Same goes for Beans.instantiate() .. (see section 10.3 of the Beans spec ftp://ftp.javasoft.com/docs/beans/beans.101.pdf).
Since Eduardo co-wrote the "how to be a good bean" doc that Greg pointed to I imagine there will be no opposition to removing this! Sanjiva. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 8:50 AM Subject: Re: TCK issue: beans with full constructors? > Well, > > I think it's more good programming practice as there is nothing explicitely > in the java bean spec about this... However... there is also the following > reference... > http://java.sun.com/products/javabeans/docs/goodbean.pdf > which states... > > Two rules implied by the JavaBeans architecture but that are sometimes > missed > include: > - the Bean class must provide zero-argument constructors so it can be > created > using Beans.instantiate(), and > - the Bean must support persistence, by implementing either Serializable or > Externalizable. > > Regards... Greg > > > > > Sam > Ruby/Raleigh/IBM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > @IBMUS cc: > Subject: Re: TCK issue: beans with full constructors? > 06/13/2002 08:39 > PM > Please respond > to axis-dev > > > > > > > Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: > > >+1 .. beans can only have no-args constructors; otherwise it breaks > >the entire programming model they espouse. > > > > > Do you have a definative reference for this? I see nothing in the spec > that requires this, and conflicting information out on the web. > > In particular, I find the following very informative: > http://developer.java.sun. > com/developer/community/chat/OfficeHours/1999/oh0812.html > > - Sam Ruby > > >
