... and I don't really see where a "web-context" has anything to do with a bean being called (and named) a bean ...
Obviously, if we wrote an application in C++, we probably wouldn't name anything a bean (unless we had, say coffee beans we were modeling - may likely have a bean in the class name then). However, ... well, this is Java :-) and I was under the (mistaken?) impression that a class which follows the "JavaBeans Patterns" should be named appropriately. Viewing things in that frame of mind, I think appending "Bean" to a class' name is appropriate if it conforms to those patterns -- not considering whether it is used primarily in a "web application" or a "GUI application". I don't see why a distinction would be drawn. Have I missed something fundamental? Eddie Bush wrote: > I would suggest it be done, yes. You can make certain assumptions > about a bean - having *Bean as a name immediately tells you certain > things about a class. Though, for the dynamic classes, I suppose it's > less appropriate ... > > I'm cool with status quo :-) But, if change is about us - that's the > way I personally would like to see it go. > > David Graham wrote: > >> To be devil's advocate...Why should you append the word "Bean" to >> your class name? Should every class that's used as a bean have this >> word appended to it? PersonBean, AccountBean, etc... >> >> I see nothing wrong with the current name of ActionForm but Form or >> FormBean seem appropriate as well. In this case, adding Bean to the >> end is appropriate because it's not meant to be used outside of a web >> framework. >> >> Dave > > > Peace :-) -- Eddie Bush -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
