Re: [Proxool-developer] Driver specific interfaces

[Bill H. <bi...@lo...>]

On Wed, 2004-03-24 at 22:11, Christian Nedreg=E5rd wrote:

> I hate to be the devils advocate here...=20

But a useful role :)

> but maybe we can find a more simple and generic way of doing this?

I'm with you so far...

> How about evaluating a full blown AOP approach instead?=20

That seems like a big step. Would it be possible to have an AOP solution
alongside the proxy one? I think it should be a configurable option (if
that is possible)

> simply  intercept the  methods  we  need to handle specially.=20

I like the "simply" ;-)

> This will prevent us from using the disposable wrapper though (i
> think)...

I would hope not. Or at least, an AOP solution should be as robust as
disposable wrappers.

By all means, lets explore an AOP solution. But it has to be as well as
these other solutions we are providing. If Proxool-AOP becomes a good
solution then it might replace the current system but I don't see that
happening anytime soon.

- Bill