RE: [Springframework-developer] AOP API

[Kopylenko, D. <dko...@ac...>]

+1 for pointcut-interceptor pairs

-----Original Message-----
From: Rod Johnson [mailto:rod...@in...] 
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 9:24 AM
To: spr...@li...
Subject: Re: [Springframework-developer] AOP API


+1, I think this is our last chance to change public APIs. I really 
+don't
want to do this after M3.

So we need to make sure we get it right.

We could simply provide an "Aspect" that has one pointcut and one
interceptor. Or we could have one pointcut and multiple interceptors (harder
to justify). Or a set of pointcut-interceptor pairs, as Renaud suggested. Or
is there another mechanism of composition we could provide?

Regards,
Rod

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Colin Sampaleanu" <col...@ex...>
To: <spr...@li...>
Cc: "Bob Lee" <cra...@cr...>
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Springframework-developer] AOP API


> I'm ok with this. It makes sense, and it will be a lot harder to 
> justify breaking the API later. My own code that is affected will be 
> pretty easy to refactor.
>
>
> Rod Johnson wrote:
>
> >All,
> >
> >I've recently been discussing our pointcut API with Bob Lee (of 
> >jAdvise,
AOP
> >Alliance and "Bitter EJB").
> >
> >Bob is currently using Spring AOP and wants the ability to reuse
pointcuts
> >independently of interceptors.
> >
> >This seems a reasonable thing to do, so I've been wondering whether 
> >it's correct to model a Pointcut as having an interceptor, as Spring 
> >AOP presently does. Perhaps pointcuts should be independent of 
> >interceptors,
and
> >there should be a new Aspect type that contains a Pointcut _and_ an 
> >Interceptor. The methods on ProxyConfig could add and remove this new
type
> >(with the Interceptor methods kept for convenience), and it would 
> >need to
be
> >hooked up instead of MethodPointcut in bean factories.
> >
> >Bob suggested that the ProxyConfig methods could take both a Pointcut
_and_
> >an Interceptor, but we really need a single umbrella object for use 
> >in
bean
> >factories.
> >
> >Something like
> >
> >interface Aspect {
> >    [Method]Pointcut getPointcut();
> >    Interceptor getInterceptor();
> >}
> >
> >
> >Perhaps it could be generalized to hold a List of Interceptor, rather
than a
> >single interceptor. As this would complicate the implementation, I'd 
> >like feedback on whether it's really necessary.
> >
> >Calling such a new object "Advice" would  be more AspectJ-like, but I
think
> >Aspect is clearer.
> >
> >I'm a bit reluctant to change the public API at this stage, but I 
> >think
this
> >would be an improvement. A convenient implementation of Aspect could
extend
> >RegexpMethodPointcut, making usage similar to the existing pattern.
> >
> >Any thoughts? AOP users, would you mind the impact this would have on
your
> >code? (It wouldn't be too difficult to migrate.)
> >
> >Regards,
> >Rod
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does 
> SourceForge.net help you be more productive?  Does it
> help you create better code?   SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
> YOU!  Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ 
> _______________________________________________
> Springframework-developer mailing list 
> Spr...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/springframework-developer
>




-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does
SourceForge.net help you be more productive?  Does it
help you create better code?   SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
YOU!  Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
_______________________________________________
Springframework-developer mailing list
Spr...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/springframework-developer