on 5/31/01 8:44 AM, "Gareth Coltman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guys,
>
> Sorry if this post seems a little ill-informed, but I having been talking to
> a colleague about Javabeans (the normal kind, not EJB's), and wondered why
> Turbine(i.e. you lot) decided to avoid the Javabean framework. It seems to
> be that many aspects of Turbine (MVC, Singleton approach etc) could still
> function under the beans architecture, but provide a more component (rather
> than module/service) based approach. Are have only heard good things about
> javabeans, but I'm sure there are disadvantages... so what are they?!
>
> Thanks
>
> Gareth
>
> PS. I did read the article about JSP vs Velocity but it doesn't really
> concentrate beans.
/me is wondering why your colleague didn't explain what a bean is. :-)
In summary, my interpretation of a Javabean is simply a naming convention
that allows you to use reflection to access the properties of an object.
Most of the Turbine objects try to use this naming convention at this point.
Some of the "earlier" and legacy code didn't.
Other than an explanation of what a bean is, I'm not really sure what your
question is though. You may want to read the Java.sun.com website a
bit...this stuff is pretty well documented and really is pretty basic.
-jon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
