Hmm looks a lot like Martin Fowlers "dynamic properties" and one wonder if this isn't just another workaround for missing the real thing in the language.
Type safety seems to suffer in much the same way demonstrated by annotations, turning entities into "a big bag of stuff". Also it would not appear to compose very well with the existing programming model in use, with regard to inheritance, POJO preference, javadocs and code completion. /Casper On Sep 9, 6:00 pm, kd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, I Just spotted the following article on UJO framework > (http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=50604) and wondered > others felt of this coarse style access to POJO versus the common > JavaBean style access to POJO attributes ? I must admit, when I > scanned it, I found myself mulling over the pot stirring article from > Allen Holub from many years ago (http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/ > jw-09-2003/jw-0905-toolbox.html), but I'd like to hear more thoughts > around this too ! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
