It wasn't an "idea". It was/is working tech. How do you think a GUI builder for Java works? In fact, how would you build a UI design tool (in any language) without arriving at the equivalent of a Java Bean (aka Standard Component)?
[p.s.] Btw, "Big Object" is a funny way to call a Component. COP is not OOP. (Thus: POJO). So getter/setter naming patterns (so the 'tool' can infer semantics), distinctions made between run-time and design-time, etc. are all perfectly valid concerns for COP and Java Beans a perfectly sensible realization.
The problem with the Java community has always been two-fold:
1 - The conceptual disconnect between the target audience of Sun's architects and the said architects. SMI's failing here remains, imo, a pedagogical failure.
2 - A language that facilitates creating complex runnable monstrosities by programmers who would be crushed by the same complexity in other languages. This is an ironic aspect of the Java language. Even newbies can go nuts with complexity.
It wasn't an "idea". It was/is working tech. How do you think a GUI builder for Java works? In fact, how would you build a UI design tool (in any language) without arriving at the equivalent of a Java Bean (aka Standard Component)?
[p.s.] Btw, "Big Object" is a funny way to call a Component. COP is not OOP. (Thus: POJO). So getter/setter naming patterns (so the 'tool' can infer semantics), distinctions made between run-time and design-time, etc. are all perfectly valid concerns for COP and Java Beans a perfectly sensible realization.
The problem with the Java community has always been two-fold:
1 - The conceptual disconnect between the target audience of Sun's architects and the said architects. SMI's failing here remains, imo, a pedagogical failure.
2 - A language that facilitates creating complex runnable monstrosities by programmers who would be crushed by the same complexity in other languages. This is an ironic aspect of the Java language. Even newbies can go nuts with complexity.