| To: | "'CinJug'" <users@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | RE: [cinjug-users] Constants imply DP (was: Question on last Monday's meeting) |
| From: | "Jim Cook" <jimcook@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:57:23 -0500 |
| Delivered-to: | mailing list users@cinjug.org |
| In-reply-to: | <3a4860b4050225114541da1f4@mail.gmail.com> |
| Mailing-list: | contact users-help@cinjug.org; run by ezmlm |
| Thread-index: | AcUbcoYaNGxBV4xlQbChrpJSLpo4RAAAMUiA |
> From: Mark Windholtz [mailto:windholtz@xxxxxxxxx] > I'd rather say that DP solves this problem better than distributed > objects. > (Oh that hurt my fingers to type.) Yeow!!!! Did someone hack into Mark's gmail account? :-) Mark, are going to start a DP-Cinci users group? :-) If I replace the use of a public constant with a Model.getConstant() would that still imply DP? |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [cinjug-users] Constants imply DP (was: Question on last Monday's meeting), Mark Windholtz |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [cinjug-users] Does corp. America still trust Java?, Charles Bandy |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [cinjug-users] Constants imply DP (was: Question on last Monday's meeting), Mark Windholtz |
| Next by Thread: | DP is not bad ( was: Constants imply DP ), Mark Windholtz |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |