My take on POJOs is that they are no longer POJOs when there is an import statement for something not conforming to the expression "java*.*".
I see quite a lot of frameworks and toolkits claiming benefits around POJO oriented development. However either through annotations, extension, implementation etc. they require dependencies on non JRE artifacts.
This situation is quite OK of course; I just think that it is useful to distinguish a POJO from its dependent form. For example if you're looking for Object Relational Mapping then you might want to consider the Java Persistence API instead of being directly dependent on an implementation; such as Hibernate. Maintaining this distinction allows you to consider migration strategies to other implementations if required.
Sometimes you need to be dependent on a toolkit or framework and that is of course perfectly acceptable. Being aware is the significant point.
1 comment:
My initial response was "That's a bit narrow!" but then I stopped and thought, "Good point".
This mis-naming of POJOs is reminiscent to me of the claims of several framework producers of simplicity through dependency injection. The dependencies still remain, they have simply moved from Java to XML!
Using this strategy, almost any class not required to implement or extend can become a JSE POJO.
Post a Comment