Re: [Proxool-developer] Driver specific interfaces

[<chr...@em...>]

Well argued Bertrand :)

And yes Bill, a fully blown AOP soution is a bit on the horizon.

I'm sold methinks.

Implement it and lets see how it works out.

CHR



Bill Horsman wrote:

>On Wed, 2004-03-24 at 22:11, Christian Nedregård wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I hate to be the devils advocate here... 
>>    
>>
>
>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? 
>>    
>>
>
>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. 
>>    
>>
>
>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
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
>Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of
>GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system
>administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id70&alloc_id638&op=click
>_______________________________________________
>Proxool-developer mailing list
>Pro...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/proxool-developer
>
>  
>