Re: [Repast-developer] aspectj and movement

[Nick C. <nic...@ve...>]

I'm a bit confused. Is MoveableAgent a marker interface? And if it
isn't, why not? That is, what sort of client code requires agents to be
MoveableAgents? I'm not asking this to be annoying, but rather to get a
sense of the big picture. (I know we've talked about this, but it would
be good to have something documented). Can you sketch the architecture
(perhaps too grand a notion here for a prototyping experiment), and walk
through the steps that a user has to do to get a MoveableAgent and what
they can do with it once they've got it.

thanks,

Nick



On Mon, 2002-01-07 at 17:37, Laszlo Gulyas wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This is just off the top of my head, but I don't think having a
> flag- or identity interface should confuse the user. (As a
> matter of fact, they might get much more confused by
> aspects in general, but as I said before, I'd take the challenge.)
> 
> In fact, repast already has identity interfaces (e.g. Torus
> in the space lib), but it might well be true that a user
> has never had to use them up to this point.
> 
> Just my two cents.
> 
> Gulya
> 
> PS: I began to think that I should submit all my dreams
> to this list, given the response time by which, e.g. this
> independent-of-space dream of mine seems to be getting
> into shape... ;-)
> 
> At 10:59 AM 1/7/02 -0600, Thomas Howe wrote:
> >Hi,
> >I am currently working on implement movement behaviour using aspect 
> >oriented programming, so that the agent doesn't have to make calls 
> >directly to the space.  We have discussed this a little on this list, and 
> >I'm just checking the feasibility.
> >
> >Here's where I stand.  I am using aspectj as my aop language  I have an 
> >"introduction aspect" as aspectj calls it, that adds a move method to the 
> >class.  Basically, an introduction aspect adds new code to an existing 
> >class.  This way the user never has to see the code, and we don't have 
> >issues of multiple inheritence.  That's all fine and dandy.  Here's the 
> >question.  In order to use this, the aspect has to be able to determine 
> >which classes should have the added behaviour.  The best way that I can 
> >think of to implement this is with interfaces.  For example, a class would 
> >declare that it implements MoveableAgent and then the aspect adds the code 
> >as appropriate.  I wonder, though, if this may be a problem.  From the 
> >point of view of a user, when you declare that you implement an interface, 
> >you always have to implement the methods yourself.  Will it be too 
> >confusing to declare that you implement an interface without actually 
> >writing any code?
> >
> >This was not the clearest note I've written, but I hope my point is 
> >somewhat understandable.  Please let me know if it is not.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Tom
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Repast-developer mailing list
> >Rep...@li...
> >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/repast-developer
> 
> --
> Laszlo Gulyas, MSc              Phone: (617) 
> 384-9216
> Government Department   Weatherhead Center for International Affairs
> Harvard University              602C Coolidge Hall
> 1737 Cambridge street           Cambridge, MA-02138
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Repast-developer mailing list
> Rep...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/repast-developer
-- 
Nick Collier 
Social Science Research Computing
University of Chicago 
http://repast.sourceforge.net