Actually EJB's have little to do with OO

Post #144,343 by bluke 3/4/04 2:13:04 AM 3/4/04 2:49:04 AM Reply	Actually EJB's have little to do with OO EJB's promote distinctly non OO programming practices: 1. Separation of data and business logic - the EJB model has Entity Beans which your hold your data and session beans which execute business logic. In every EJB system that I have seen the data objects are just dumb data objects. A true OO system would not have this separation. Let's take a simple example, credit card validation/charges. An OO approach would be to have a credit card object that could be asked are you valid, and charge this amount. The credit card object would know how to do it. The EJB approach is to have a session bean which does credit card authorization. The EJB gets passed in the credit card details and does the authorization, the credit card object is just a dumb data holder. 2. Little or no inheritance - it is very difficult to combine entity beans and inheritance, finder methods for example are not polymorphic. see this [link\|http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/1322\|blog] for a similar opinion "It looks to me that we are doing RPC calls from the client to the server (via the facade). Our entities are glorified structs, and sessions are functions that work on that data. So what do you think... is this the right way to be doing things? Is this OO? " Edited by bluke March 4, 2004, 02:26:29 AM EST Actually EJB's have little to do with OO EJB's promote distinctly non OO programming practices: 1. Separation of data and business logic - the EJB model has Entity Beans which your hold your data and session beans which execute business logic. In every EJB system that I have seen the data objects are just dumb data objects. A true OO system would not have this separation. Let's take a simple example, credit card validation/charges. An OO approach would be to have a credit card object that could be asked are you valid, and charge this amount. The credit card object would know how to do it. The EJB approach is to have a session bean which does credit card authorization. The EJB gets passed in the credit card details and does the authorization, the credit card object is just a dumb data holder. 2. Little or no inheritance - it is very difficult to combine entity beans and inheritance, finder methods for example are not polymorphic. Edited by bluke March 4, 2004, 02:49:04 AM EST Expand All History \| Collapse All History
Post #144,427 by tablizer 3/4/04 1:58:51 PM Reply	So bad that no paradigm wants to claim it? An OO approach would be to have a credit card object that could be asked are you valid, and charge this amount....the [EJB] credit card object is just a dumb data holder Note that not every OO affectionado agrees that OO is about "self-handling nouns". Majority? I don't know. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #144,483 by CRConrad 3/4/04 4:29:00 PM Reply	Huh? Are you making up stuff as you go along, again? Bryce quotes BLuke: [Referring to [link\|http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/1322\|this blog entry]:] An OO approach would be to have a credit card object that could be asked are you valid, and charge this amount....the [EJB] credit card object is just a dumb data holder To which Bryce replies: Note that not every OO affectionado agrees that OO is about "self-handling nouns". Majority? I don't know. Whu, whoo, what??? Now what orifice did you pull this shit out of?!? When and where did you gain the impression that "not every OO affectionado [sic] agrees that OO is about 'self-handling nouns'"? That's THE most basic trait of OOP; pretty much the DEFINITION of it. I can't see how anyone can BE an "OO 'affectionado'" without agreeing with at least THAT. Unless you show references, I'm going to assume that you either: A) have misunderstood what some "OO 'affectionado'" was saying [you DO realise that Dion Almaer was arguing FOR "self-handling nouns"?]; or B) mistook some non-"OO 'affectionado'" for an "OO 'affectionado'"; or C) are intentionally PRETENDING to have got something wrong à la A or B, in order to (make [even more of] an ass out of yourself by trying to) bolster the pathetic arguments of your moronic anti-OO crusade. Give us verifiable references of a bona fide "OO 'affectionado'" arguing that "OO is NOT about 'self-handling nouns'", or tell us which of the above it is. Personally, I'm guessing it's C. [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) You know you're doing good work when you get flamed by an idiot. -- [link\|http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/35/34218.html\|Andrew Wittbrodt]
Post #144,550 by jake123 3/5/04 1:37:31 AM Reply	Old school usenet style. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------

Welcome to IWETHEY!