Re: [Webwork-user] OT: AOP toolkit, was Why I like WebWork

[Roger H. <ro...@fl...>]

Rickard wrote:
>What I have now is a rewrite of that stuff. It wasn't very scalable 
>(e.g. interceptor/aspect instances couldn't be reused even if they were 
>stateless), and making interceptors Proxy InvocationHandlers just 
>wasn't the best way to do it. What I have now is not only easy to work 
>with, it's scalable (stateless instances can be reused, and object 
>caches can be flushed, like EJB) and fast (during an invocation no 
>objects are created by the framework itself). Other than that the basic 
>semantics is the same as the old framework.

>See above, it's a lot better/simpler. Who would've thought that 
>possible..

>Anyway, we've talked about doing the AOP toolkit as a separate thing 
>from our main product (which is a content management system). We'd like 
>to test it in our own stuff first, to see if it can be used in a large 
>system effectively. We think so, but need to try to actually know so :-)

I can well understand wanting to test it in you own stuff first - do you 
have any feel for the time scales involved?  If these are long, is there 
anything you would consider making a snapshot of, as you did for the 
'first go'?  I don't wish to sound impatient - I'm just fascinated by 
this bit of code!  I happened to bump into the 'first go' soon after I 
worked out the Proxy class was 'interesting' - I just hadn't understood 
quite 'how interesting' it might be :-)

Also off topic, but this time with regard to the content management 
system - are you pursuing the JDO / RDF scheme you outlined previously? 
If this is your main product, then presumably you won't be opensourcing 
this code? - unless perhaps there are other generic modules? Etc. etc. - 
ever curious????

Roger