A big amount of hype from the side of Injection/IoC/Aspect zealots. Now add to this also some serious VC founding in the last time, and you have the big picture :).
Yeah, it's true that POJO as a term has been hyped. Yet IMHO there's also a technical difference: A JavaBean has properties (fields, getters, setters). OTOH a business component may be implemented as a POJO in form of an EJB 3.0 stateless session bean, but it will not be a JavaBean because it offers bussiness processing methods in its interface instead of JavaBean-style properties.
A JavaBean has private properties accessed via getters/setters and has an empty constructor. A POJO is usually very similar, but can be ANY java class, without any requirement for who it inherits from and with no particular constructor requirements (e.g. any java class).
The getters/setter also must follow the JavaBean naming convention, right?
"Norris Shelton" <no_reply@jetbrains.com> wrote in message news:16880173.1180113609315.JavaMail.itn@is.intellij.net... >A JavaBean has private properties accessed via getters/setters and has an >empty constructor. A POJO is usually very similar, but can be ANY java >class, without any requirement for who it inherits from and with no >particular constructor requirements (e.g. any java class).
A big amount of hype from the side of Injection/IoC/Aspect zealots.
Now add to this also some serious VC founding in the last time, and you have the big picture :).
Ahmed.
Yeah, it's true that POJO as a term has been hyped.
Yet IMHO there's also a technical difference:
A JavaBean has properties (fields, getters, setters).
OTOH a business component may be implemented as a POJO in form of an EJB 3.0
stateless session bean, but it will not be a JavaBean because it offers
bussiness processing methods in its interface instead of JavaBean-style properties.
Yura wrote:
A JavaBean has private properties accessed via getters/setters and has an empty constructor. A POJO is usually very similar, but can be ANY java class, without any requirement for who it inherits from and with no particular constructor requirements (e.g. any java class).
The getters/setter also must follow the JavaBean naming convention, right?
"Norris Shelton" <no_reply@jetbrains.com> wrote in message
news:16880173.1180113609315.JavaMail.itn@is.intellij.net...
>A JavaBean has private properties accessed via getters/setters and has an
>empty constructor. A POJO is usually very similar, but can be ANY java
>class, without any requirement for who it inherits from and with no
>particular constructor requirements (e.g. any java class).
Correct.