Talk:JavaBeans

broken links

the 3rd link (Enterprise JavaBeans 3.0 Overview) appears broken..

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)[reply]

Move??

JavaBeans be moved to JavaBeans ??? Is there something I am missing? --so U m y a S ch 15:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support move. -- Solipsist 12:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The name of the technology does not have a space. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 19:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oppose. The official name from Sun is JavaBeans. RedWolf 18:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Seconded. capnmidnight 18:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Other page titles are in singular, too. It's one JavaBean, two JavaBeans. Wouter Lievens 14:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)...[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.