Sorry, you lost me.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sagenschneider, Daniel A
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 9:42 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [XML][Deployment]POJO design?
>
>
> Jeremy,
>
> I was just stressing the point of collaboration rather than
> inheritance. Collaboration allows us to configure in a much
> more flexible manor and thus not be restricted by inheritance
> - especially in trying to find generic models to suit Message
> Driven, Session, CMP, so forth. As we are (as always)
> programming to interfaces, the manor in which the information
> for the POJOs is obtained is hidden beneath various layers of
> bridges which call on builders (allowing ultimate flexibility
> when balancing memory, speed, and/or maintainability - i.e.
> binary vs XML). In otherwords do not bind configuration onto
> the interface of the POJOs but rather have a bundle of POJOs
> for configuration each pertaining to a different aspect of the EJB.
>
> This also allows for both the persisting and retrieval of the
> information to be performed encapsulated away from Geronimo.
> In otherwords, why can't we utilise collaboration (and
> bridges) and take various approaches to loading particular
> configurations (granted though it takes more work, it's
> flexibility will provide for a greater community). Initially
> we can focus on one and then expand on those in separate
> modular projects to have different manors in which to
> configure Geronimo that will allow everyone to be happy
> (instead of compromising).
>
> Regards,
> Daniel Sagenschneider
>
