>a) Not everything in the world needs or should be JavaBeans (I really >personally dislike the concept)
Agree on the first part.... >b) Performance reasons.... I understand this reasoning for javax.media.j3d.* classes, but I'm more concerned with not having getters and setters for the guys like Point3d. There is no real reason why you can't have getX(), setX(), getY(), setY(), getZ(), setZ() on these classes... They are all returning native types (doubles and floats), no object creation in sight. The compiler is going to optimize p1.getX() to just be p1.x anyway, but code that is built on the Java bean principles won't work properly. I'm specifically thinking EJBs and dependent value classes. Without javax.vecmath.* being Java beans, the J2EE server doesn't know how to use them and I will have to write my own Point3d which extends javax.vecmath.Point3d and adds getters and setters... Something I would rather not do. Michael =========================================================================== To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "signoff JAVA3D-INTEREST". For general help, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
