Talk:JavaBean

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] POJOs

The fact that event handling requires support classes, interfaces, and specific base classes, doesn't negate the fact that fundamentally a Java Bean is just a plain ol' object. Nor does adding interfaces, base classes, and support classes to a new class without the Java Bean conventions make the class more than any other object. 128.114.57.91 19:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Move??

JavaBeans be moved to JavaBeans ??? Is there something I am missing? --soUmyaSch 15:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Support move. -- Solipsist 12:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The name of the technology does not have a space. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 19:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


JavaBeans should be moved to JavaBean, but it needs an admin as the redirect has a history. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 15:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The official name from Sun is JavaBeans. RedWolf 18:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Seconded. capnmidnight 18:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Other page titles are in singular, too. It's one JavaBean, two JavaBeans. Wouter Lievens 14:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed my vote. --Bonafidehan 16:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elaboration

This page seriously needs expansion and elaboration. As with most useless programming help pages, all it does is explain what is required for something to be considered a Java bean and how one is used - but never explains what one actually is! 68.55.218.175 16:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see what further explaination of "what one is" one could make past "what is required" and "how it is used". Besides, there is a description: "a reusable component that can be manipulated visually in a builder tool".capnmidnight 18:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)...

I absolutely agree with the original poster--imho the article makes the common comp-sci mistake of forgetting the "why" while spelling out the "how". It fails to talk about the big picture and immediately gets lost in details like method naming conventions. I read the page and went away thinking "But under what circumstances do you use them? Why would anyone dump pojos in favor of Java Beans?"--Tip: In technical articles, make sure the word because shows up in the first line. -- 193.99.145.162 18:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Java Beans *are* POJOs, with a standard naming convention. As for the why, it's so you can have a "resuable component that can be manipulated visually in a builder tool." Do you need elaboration on why someone would want a reusable component? How about elaboration on why someone would want to manipulate it visually in a builder tool? You're complaining about something being missing from the article when *it's not*. If you expected something more out of JavaBeans, I'm sorry, there just isn't that much to them. capnmidnight 22:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Should serializable classes have a line like "private static final long serialVersionUID = 7526471155622776147L;" I think I read that the serialVersionUID should be declared for serializable classes. Is this different for beans? Just a thought.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/v/Talk%7EJavaBean_f076.html"