Bob Lee wrote:
> I seem to remember one of the AspectJ guys implementing the
> aopalliance interfaces at TSSS last year. It might have been Adrian.
> TMK, JBoss doesn't support it.
>
> We've had a 1.0 release which focused on interception. I know Dynaop
> and Spring support it. I'm sure AspectWerkz supports it; they support
> everything else.
>
> Going forward, there's not much point in specifying mixins.
> There might be some room to specify a pointcut language or something
> like that, but I don't think we're to that point yet.
Should you just take whathever already supported by AW and AspectJ?
> Is there something missing you'd like to see?
There is no before/after/onexception semantic. Of course this can be
implented with "around", but everybody (at least Spring and AW) have
their own proprietory extensions.
regards,
Eugene
> On 5/25/05, Chris Elgar <Chris.Elgar@solnetsolutions.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>
>>Hi All
>>
>> Is there any ongoing work within the AOP Alliance? There doesn't seem to
>>have been any CVS activity beyond updating javadoc information for about 14
>>months. I would also be keen to hear from members of the alliance or people
>>who have implemented the interfaces on the following questions:
>>
>> How successful were the interfaces in establishing interoperability between
>>frameworks? Am I correct that jboss, aspectj, and aspectwerkz have not
>>implemented these interfaces and spring has only partially? Are there
>>reasons why these major frameworks haven't implemented the interfaces?
>> The interfaces appear to be geared towards interceptor based
>>implementations. Are frameworks like AspectJ just too different to be able
>>to implement these types of interfaces or implement common standards with
>>other frameworks?
>> Where are standards for AOP heading?
>> The joinpoint model is quite restrictive (I acknowledge there are arguments
>>for this). Would it be better to have a richer model and have some
>>frameworks that only partially implement it or have a restrictive model and
>>have frameworks extend this?
>>
>> I see standards in AOP as being important. I am very keen on organisations
>>being able to develop aspects without worrying about the final deployment
>>technology. However, at this stage we seem to be heading along the path of
>>frameworks building in their own support for others aspects, rather than
>>working on a viable standard.
>>
>> Thanks for any help you can give.
>>
>> Chris.
|
