> From: A mailing list for Enterprise JavaBeans development
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert Krüger
> I'm not sure I understand your position in this. Are you saying that code
> generation should not be necessary to make up for poor design or do you agree
> with the approach of using code generation as a valid tool for getting rid of
> some parts of the maintenance burden?
Sorry for not being clear. My point was exactly that: more and more people are
going to use generation tools to build their applications. It will become as
commonplace as the use of compilers today.
The downside of this is that application servers are going to deal with huge
quantities of code. That's *our* (application server developers) problem.
The upside is that if the tools are good enough, it should be possible to
maintain these enormous codebases with them. That's *your* (application
developers) problem.
We're not quite there yet, but a lot of the generation tools are definitely on
their way there (at the lower end of the scale, the likes of JBuilder and
NetBeans. On the other end, TogetherJ, RationalRose, etc...).
> I strongly believe that you need a combination of both handcoded parts and
> parts that can be tackled by tools generating code from meta information
> which saves you a lot of headaches in QA and maintenance. Finding the right
> balance is what makes a good software architect and no tool is going to make
> that decision for you, no matter how good because it is a trade-off in each
> individual case.
100% agreed.
--
Cedric
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
