Talk:JavaBeans

Link to COM

I think the rkljhlklkjkllklkmkmlelation to COM that hypothetically justifies there being a link to the article needs to be made explicit. I believe a link to component-based software engineering would be more relevant. --Guillaume (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broken link

the 3rd link (Enterprise JavaBeans 3.0 Overview) appears broken..(I'm not confident enough to remove it myself!)

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]

"[JavaBeans] are used to encapsulate many objects into a single object (the bean), so that the bean can be passed around rather than the individual objects.". Isn't that concept infinitely recursive ? i.e. What comes before the bean ? What comes after ? As a newcommer to JavaBeans a definately agree there is lack of context in this article. --Guillaume (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serializable classes

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. hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.197.25.11 (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reusability

What about a JavaBean makes it any more reusable than any other class or class hierarchy? A naive reader might think that all classes can be manipulated in a builder tool, so the article should say what the limitations of a non-bean might be. If merely adhering to the conventions makes it reusable - then please say so - and mention the use cases where it is more reusable than any other class. Might also help to say whether Enterprise JavaBeans are a subset of JavaBeans. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hroðulf (talk • contribs) [reply]