Bert Bates wrote:You're asking us to generalize
I'd say Sex in the City or Eat, Pray, Love
David Newton wrote:
Darya Akbari wrote:However as the question implicites the terms POJO, XDoclet and Dependency Injection can be in a relationship. I've seen them together with Java EE 5. Since Java EE 5, XDoclet became obsolete and we use Java Annotations instead and let the EE containers do the injection at runtime.
But XDoclet was creating descriptor files, remote/home interfaces, and so on. I don't really see that it was doing the same work as DI in any meaningful way--maybe you could explain how they're similar, since I don't see it.
David Newton wrote:It's either a short answer to your specific question, or several paragraphs explaining things you either already know, or can learn on your own. Since you provided no information about what you know, why you were asking the question, or why you believe(d) they're equivalent, I gave the short answer rather than basically cut-and-pasting the definition of XDoclet and DI.
Jesper Young wrote:Pictures here of the volcano, including a satellite image in which you can see the enormous cloud drifting from Iceland to the UK.
Paul Clapham wrote:Perhaps you hadn't heard that Iceland had a banking system meltdown in which they ended up owing billions or trillions of euros (I don't remember which) to Britain and the Netherlands? Anyway they have been stalling on paying that money (because they don't have anything like that much money) so Britain sent a short note saying "SEND CASH NOW". Or actually they meant to say that but they left out one letter and ended up saying "SEND ASH NOW". Well, that's something Iceland can do, and you see the result.
David Newton wrote:DI is about how and where implementation dependencies are specified. XDoclet is about source code generation based on Javadoc tags.
If you were really perverse you could probably use XDoclet to implement DI and play unhealthy games with in-process compilation/loading.
So POJO + XDoclet = POJO + a bunch of generated source code, which could be used reasonably, or abused horribly--perhaps giving you a form of DI, but probably by accident.
Bear Bibeault wrote:Because it isn't. That's like asking "why isn't an apple blue?"
David Newton wrote:No.
Pat Farrell wrote:Agile development is the buzzword for this century. It claims that it is light on its feet, able to change instantly. Like a dancer.
Of course, those same claims have been made ever five years or so about every new programming style. I have seen it for Structured Programming, and High Level Languages, and Object Oriented Languages. I am willing to bet that the same arguments were made when folks on the Eniac dreamed about Fortran.