> Why put POJO into the name ... this is naturally inferred no? Well, there is no technical reasons. This may be the consequence of a chat we had with Alan, where we discussed about objects being created by an hypothetic ASN.1 compiler, and we were talking of POJOs. So it's temporary.
> I know > its a pojo because you're not using Avalon or something and if you did > then you can name those components. I usually find I think in an > inverted way.... otherwise too many things will have POJO at the end of em. I agree with you. Let's stop this POJO infection :) A java class is a POJO, no? > > My 2 cents ... don't let me slow your most excellent progress. It won't ! And refactoring cost only 2 cents, so changing all the POJOs to something simpler will be done.
