Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. The Lounge
  3. What's the equivalent of Java Beans in .net? [modified]

What's the equivalent of Java Beans in .net? [modified]

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Lounge
questioncsharpjavadotnet
21 Posts 13 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • B beatles1692

    As far as I know POJO stands for Plain Old Java Objects and We have POCO (Plain old CLR objects) in .net (although they are not very old :)) I'm talking about EJBs. Thanks

    R Offline
    R Offline
    Russell Morris
    wrote on last edited by
    #9

    beatles1692 wrote:

    As far as I know POJO stands for Plain Old Java Objects and We have POCO (Plain old CLR objects) in .net (although they are not very old :)) I'm talking about EJBs.

    Enterprise Java Beans (EJBs) and Java Beans are entirely different beasties. As others have pointed out, the "Java Bean" spec is quite sparse and simple - it's mostly a naming contract for standardized property getters/setters for aggregate objects. Enterprise Java Beans, while still following the Java Beans spec, necessarily imply the massive J2EE architecture itself in their own existence. .NET (or Microsoft-centric development in general) has nothing along the lines of J2EE in terms of formal specification. There have been a number of attempts by MS over the years to come up with an architecture with similar goals as J2EE, but nothing has stuck (frankly, I don't think anything they've come up with has approached J2EE). You can do all the things that a J2EE app server does or allows its beans to do (connection pooling, cross-connector transactions, remote object lookup and instantiation, queuing, etc...) but it's not all tied up in the nice bow that a J2EE app server gives you.

    B 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • B beatles1692

      Recenlty I've been reading some articles about java beans. I wonder if there's an equivalent of Java Beans in .Net Framework and if the answer is yes what is it? -- modified at 9:18 Wednesday 8th August, 2007

      R Offline
      R Offline
      Ryan Roberts
      wrote on last edited by
      #10

      Beans or enterprise beans? System.Component is probably the closest equivalent to Java beans.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • R Russell Morris

        beatles1692 wrote:

        As far as I know POJO stands for Plain Old Java Objects and We have POCO (Plain old CLR objects) in .net (although they are not very old :)) I'm talking about EJBs.

        Enterprise Java Beans (EJBs) and Java Beans are entirely different beasties. As others have pointed out, the "Java Bean" spec is quite sparse and simple - it's mostly a naming contract for standardized property getters/setters for aggregate objects. Enterprise Java Beans, while still following the Java Beans spec, necessarily imply the massive J2EE architecture itself in their own existence. .NET (or Microsoft-centric development in general) has nothing along the lines of J2EE in terms of formal specification. There have been a number of attempts by MS over the years to come up with an architecture with similar goals as J2EE, but nothing has stuck (frankly, I don't think anything they've come up with has approached J2EE). You can do all the things that a J2EE app server does or allows its beans to do (connection pooling, cross-connector transactions, remote object lookup and instantiation, queuing, etc...) but it's not all tied up in the nice bow that a J2EE app server gives you.

        B Offline
        B Offline
        beatles1692
        wrote on last edited by
        #11

        Thank you

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • M Matt Newman

          I'm not too familiar with java, but very familiar with .NET. What exactly is "Java Beans" anyway?

          -Matt Newman

          D Offline
          D Offline
          David Crow
          wrote on last edited by
          #12

          If you've ever done any MFC work, they are very similar to CDialog-derived classes. They are in charge of comunicating with the UI components.


          "A good athlete is the result of a good and worthy opponent." - David Crow

          "To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne

          J 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • M Matt Newman

            I'm not too familiar with java, but very familiar with .NET. What exactly is "Java Beans" anyway?

            -Matt Newman

            G Offline
            G Offline
            Gourav_pn
            wrote on last edited by
            #13

            I am a .net Developer and with best of my knowledge about java,beans are component which hold business logic and can be used as a supporting component for main executing programme and in .net this task is accomplished by assemblies ,which hold reusable business logic i hope this helps

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • D David Crow

              If you've ever done any MFC work, they are very similar to CDialog-derived classes. They are in charge of comunicating with the UI components.


              "A good athlete is the result of a good and worthy opponent." - David Crow

              "To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne

              J Offline
              J Offline
              Jorgen Sigvardsson
              wrote on last edited by
              #14

              Beans do not imply UI. It's more like COM objects really.

              D 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • J Jorgen Sigvardsson

                Beans do not imply UI. It's more like COM objects really.

                D Offline
                D Offline
                David Crow
                wrote on last edited by
                #15

                Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:

                Beans do not imply UI.

                They do for the specific Java project that I am currently working on.


                "A good athlete is the result of a good and worthy opponent." - David Crow

                "To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne

                J M 2 Replies Last reply
                0
                • D David Crow

                  Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:

                  Beans do not imply UI.

                  They do for the specific Java project that I am currently working on.


                  "A good athlete is the result of a good and worthy opponent." - David Crow

                  "To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne

                  J Offline
                  J Offline
                  Jorgen Sigvardsson
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #16

                  That's like saying "COM objects imply ActiveX, because they do for the project I am currently working on." :)

                  D 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • B beatles1692

                    Recenlty I've been reading some articles about java beans. I wonder if there's an equivalent of Java Beans in .Net Framework and if the answer is yes what is it? -- modified at 9:18 Wednesday 8th August, 2007

                    J Offline
                    J Offline
                    Jorgen Sigvardsson
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #17

                    Java beans are the equivalent of COM objects. They do not imply the presence of a GUI, business logic, databases, or whatever. The Java bean spec just says that you should be able to construct the object, initialize it through accessors (set/get), and be serializable. That's it.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • J Jorgen Sigvardsson

                      That's like saying "COM objects imply ActiveX, because they do for the project I am currently working on." :)

                      D Offline
                      D Offline
                      David Crow
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #18

                      The major Java GUI toolkits AWT, Swing, and SWT use JavaBeans for its components, which allows GUI editors like the Eclipse Visual Editor to maintain a hierarchy of components and to provide access to their properties via getters and setters.


                      "A good athlete is the result of a good and worthy opponent." - David Crow

                      "To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • B beatles1692

                        Recenlty I've been reading some articles about java beans. I wonder if there's an equivalent of Java Beans in .Net Framework and if the answer is yes what is it? -- modified at 9:18 Wednesday 8th August, 2007

                        B Offline
                        B Offline
                        Bassam Abdul Baki
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #19

                        .NET Fish


                        "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - George Bernard Shaw Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • B beatles1692

                          Recenlty I've been reading some articles about java beans. I wonder if there's an equivalent of Java Beans in .Net Framework and if the answer is yes what is it? -- modified at 9:18 Wednesday 8th August, 2007

                          L Offline
                          L Offline
                          led mike
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #20

                          beatles1692 wrote:

                          I wonder if there's an equivalent of Java Beans in .Net Framework

                          Yes. As others pointed out EJB is different than JavaBeans. The most significant aspect of "JavaBean" is the standard getter/setter implementation that allows the various IDE's (Designers) to present developers with GUI tools (PropertyGrid in .NET) to setup the component in their application. To build an equivalent to a JavaBean in .NET you include Designer implementation for your component that you develop. You can find documenation and many articles about that on MSDN.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • D David Crow

                            Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:

                            Beans do not imply UI.

                            They do for the specific Java project that I am currently working on.


                            "A good athlete is the result of a good and worthy opponent." - David Crow

                            "To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne

                            M Offline
                            M Offline
                            Mark_Wallace
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #21

                            DavidCrow wrote:

                            Joergen Sigvardsson wrote: Beans do not imply UI. They do for the specific Java project that I am currently working on.

                            Don't be silly. The project I'm working on proves categorically that they imply translation of XML schemas to Java objects, and vice-versa. How could you not know that?

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            Reply
                            • Reply as topic
                            Log in to reply
                            • Oldest to Newest
                            • Newest to Oldest
                            • Most Votes


                            • Login

                            • Don't have an account? Register

                            • Login or register to search.
                            • First post
                              Last post
                            0
                            • Categories
                            • Recent
                            • Tags
                            • Popular
                            • World
                            • Users
                            • Groups