Thank you Niclas and Rickard. Yeah I agree POJO is overrated.
What's not overrated (at least in my experience) is the difficulty of mix-and-match, best-of-breed style programming. It's somewhat easier to choose a full stack and live with it... Niclas Hedhman-2 wrote: > > As Rickard said, the latter. All over the place the "pojo folks" keep > re-iterating that framework dependencies shouldn't show up in > application code. Spring proponents are quick with this argument, and > show some dirt simple examples where they manage to obtain that. Yet, > take any reasonably complex Spring application, and it is riddled by > org.springframework imports. When pressed for an answer, one is told > that is a feature since Spring has now further removed a dependency of > technology X in your "pojos". By the same token, I can create > "pojo"-looking examples with Qi4j without any Qi4j imports, AND for > anything more complex we say; Well we have hidden you from the > complexities of Spring, Hibernate, JMS and whatever via extensions we > slowly will produce... > > > "POJOs" are a myth, and it only shows that "marketing" works. Exactly > how we are going to "spin" our story remains to be seen. Any marketing > or communications director on the list, who is willing to handle our > propaga^h^h^h^h^h^h^h marketing department? > > > That said, it still makes sense to create custom factories and > repositories for creation and query, since these can hide the client > direct access to composites and enhance encapsulation further. > > > Cheers > -- > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/4-Qi4j-questions-on-%3A-Qi4j-inside-objects%2C-IoC-integration%2C-GAE%2C-Qi4j-vs.-AspectJ-tp27407139p27439141.html Sent from the Qi4j-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
