Timeline for Is there any reason to use "plain old data" classes?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
28 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 31, 2022 at 7:12 | comment | added | SirHawrk | In my programming class about OO we learned that we should do this. Man thats a throwback | |
| Dec 18, 2017 at 11:50 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackSoftEng/status/942723716273893376 | ||
| Dec 16, 2017 at 9:31 | answer | added | user204677 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Dec 15, 2016 at 11:54 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 20, 2016 at 3:01 | |||||
| Dec 15, 2016 at 11:38 | comment | added | gnat | Possible duplicate of What is the point of using DTO (Data Transfer Objects)? | |
| Dec 15, 2016 at 11:37 | history | protected | gnat | ||
| Aug 14, 2016 at 15:00 | comment | added | Andy | This can be the DTO pattern, which is useful for sharing data between layers (think between your DAL and your business objects, for example). | |
| Jan 28, 2013 at 15:23 | answer | added | Eva | timeline score: 3 | |
| Feb 28, 2012 at 17:09 | answer | added | Mike E | timeline score: 31 | |
| Feb 28, 2012 at 13:33 | answer | added | Richard Faber | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jan 14, 2011 at 0:53 | vote | accept | Michael K | ||
| Dec 27, 2010 at 22:39 | comment | added | Felix Dombek | @Gaurav and others - There is no real POD in Java. It's a C/C++ concept (even if C++0x changes it somewhat). POD classically refers to a struct which has no user-defined constructors/destructors and no members with restricted access (the variables in OP's example are package private, hence no POD). Therefore, the title is also wrong. | |
| Dec 27, 2010 at 21:41 | comment | added | Adam Lear♦ | @Muad'dib: From the FAQ, "Programmers - Stack Exchange is for expert programmers who are interested in subjective discussions on software development." The questions here aren't limited to things that are about programmers. Programming in general is fair game as well, under certain conditions. | |
| Dec 27, 2010 at 20:15 | answer | added | AttackingHobo | timeline score: 3 | |
| Dec 27, 2010 at 18:42 | comment | added | Shog9 | @Muad'Dib: technically, it is about programmers. Your compiler doesn't care if you use plain old data structures. Your CPU probably enjoys it (in the "I love the smell of data fresh from the cache" sort of way). It's people who get hung up on "does this make my methodology less pure?" questions. | |
| Dec 27, 2010 at 18:29 | answer | added | compman | timeline score: 10 | |
| Dec 27, 2010 at 17:27 | comment | added | Muad'Dib | @michale true, but it is a question about "programming" not "programmers" | |
| Dec 27, 2010 at 16:28 | answer | added | Mike Dunlavey | timeline score: 6 | |
| Dec 27, 2010 at 15:46 | comment | added | Michael K | @Muad'Dib: No, it is not a 'how do I code this' question. | |
| Dec 27, 2010 at 15:42 | comment | added | Muad'Dib | shouldn't this be on stack overflow? | |
| Dec 27, 2010 at 15:37 | history | edited | Michael K | CC BY-SA 2.5 | deleted 122 characters in body; edited title |
| Dec 27, 2010 at 15:12 | answer | added | guiman | timeline score: 3 | |
| Dec 27, 2010 at 15:06 | answer | added | ern0 | timeline score: -1 | |
| Dec 27, 2010 at 15:02 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | This is a typical example of structured programming. Not necessarily bad, just not object oriented. | |
| Dec 27, 2010 at 14:51 | comment | added | Gaurav | I think the term you are looking for is POD (Plain Old Data). | |
| Dec 27, 2010 at 14:49 | answer | added | Adam Lear♦ | timeline score: 76 | |
| Dec 27, 2010 at 14:39 | comment | added | Adam Lear♦ | This doesn't quite answer your question but seems relevant nonetheless: stackoverflow.com/questions/36701/struct-like-objects-in-java | |
| Dec 27, 2010 at 14:35 | history | asked | Michael K | CC BY-SA 2.5 |