webwork-user

[Webwork-user] Why I like WebWork

[Mike Cannon-B. <mi...@at...>]

Ok - so if you're on this list you probably don't need convincing, but I
should post it anyway :)

http://radio.weblogs.com/0107789/stories/2002/07/09/whyILikeWebwork.html

Enjoy.

-mike

-- 
ATLASSIAN - http://www.atlassian.com
Expert J2EE Software, Services and Support

Re: [Webwork-user] Why I like WebWork

[Rickard <ri...@dr...>]

Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote:
> Ok - so if you're on this list you probably don't need convincing, but =
I
> should post it anyway :)
>=20
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0107789/stories/2002/07/09/whyILikeWebwork.htm=
l

Good stuff! Really well written, and actually quite balanced :-)

After a long break from the world of J2EE, I'm getting into the fray=20
again, and yesterday had the pleasure of writing an RMI-stack on top of=20
WebWork (using the ClientDispatcher as transport), since we need to be=20
able to call the server from an applet through firewalls. The whole=20
thing was written in 2 hours, and was made out of three classes:
1) a RemoteServiceFactory that uses the Proxy API to create remote=20
proxies (of ANY interface, that does not need to extend Remote or use=20
RemoteExceptions).
2) Proxy InvocationHandler to handle calls on the client which delegates =
to
3) a RemoteAction that carries the invocation through the=20
ClientDispatcher, executes it on the server, and then carries the result=20
back up through 2)

That was that. I'm sure it will be extended in the future, but this=20
alone allowed remote calls from an applet into the server. Pretty neat.=20
And since webworkclient.jar is only 14k it's pretty small too.

I'll probably be extending the ClientDispatcher stuff rather soon, since=20
for our project we need semi-asynchronous events back to the applet=20
while a call is being executed (for progress bars and such). Since all=20
communication is done through the CD this becomes trivial to implement :-=
)

Me like it.

/Rickard

ps. and instead of EJB we're using AOP which makes the app really=20
ultracool, but that's another story..

--=20
Rickard =D6berg

Re: [Webwork-user] Why I like WebWork

[Christoph K. <ki...@su...>]

Hi Rickard,

> ps. and instead of EJB we're using AOP which makes the app really 
> ultracool, but that's another story..

What is AOP? ;)

Greetings
Christph

Re: [Webwork-user] Why I like WebWork

[Rickard <ri...@dr...>]

Christoph Kiehl wrote:
>>ps. and instead of EJB we're using AOP which makes the app really=20
>>ultracool, but that's another story..
>=20
> What is AOP? ;)

Aspect Oriented Programming. The "next big thing" as they say. Been=20
using it for a couple of weeks now (no, I'm not using AspectJ) and I=20
never ever want to go back to plain old OOP again :-))) I just love the=20
flexibility I get from being able to "tack on" new interfaces and call=20
interceptors to objects without redesigning my whole app. It rocks. :-)

/Rickard

--=20
Rickard =D6berg

Re: [Webwork-user] Why I like WebWork

[Matt B. <ma...@sm...>]

What are you using instead of Aspect and why did you decide not to use it?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rickard" <ri...@dr...>
To: "Christoph Kiehl" <ki...@su...>
Cc: <web...@li...>
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 4:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Webwork-user] Why I like WebWork


Christoph Kiehl wrote:
>>ps. and instead of EJB we're using AOP which makes the app really
>>ultracool, but that's another story..
>
> What is AOP? ;)

Aspect Oriented Programming. The "next big thing" as they say. Been
using it for a couple of weeks now (no, I'm not using AspectJ) and I
never ever want to go back to plain old OOP again :-))) I just love the
flexibility I get from being able to "tack on" new interfaces and call
interceptors to objects without redesigning my whole app. It rocks. :-)

/Rickard

--
Rickard Öberg



-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Two, two, TWO treats in one.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Webwork-user mailing list
Web...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-user

Re: [Webwork-user] Why I like WebWork

[Rickard <ri...@dr...>]

Matt Baldree wrote:
> What are you using instead of Aspect and why did you decide not to use =
it?

What I'm using is already answered in other posts, but why I didn't use=20
it is for the following reasons:
1) the need for a proprietary compiler
2) the somewhat unwieldy language extensions in AspectJ
3) the inability to do runtime changes (everything in AspectJ is=20
compiletime)
4) I needed the system as a whole to be proxy-based in order to do=20
memorymanagement with object caches. Since AspectJ works on regular=20
classes that wouldn't work (AFAIK).
5) I wanted to find out if it was possible to implement AOP using plain=20
Java.

That's about it I guess.

/Rickard

--=20
Rickard =D6berg

Re: [Webwork-user] Why I like WebWork

[Matt B. <ma...@sm...>]

see below.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rickard" <ri...@dr...>
To: "Matt Baldree" <ma...@sm...>
Cc: "Christoph Kiehl" <ki...@su...>;
<web...@li...>
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Webwork-user] Why I like WebWork


> Matt Baldree wrote:
> > What are you using instead of Aspect and why did you decide not to use
it?
>
> What I'm using is already answered in other posts, but why I didn't use
> it is for the following reasons:
> 1) the need for a proprietary compiler

agree. I find this a pain but you can run the code through their compiler to
produce generated code and run it through the normal compiler.

> 2) the somewhat unwieldy language extensions in AspectJ

agree. What do you expect from the creator of CLOS. To get a better feel of
the language, I find it helpful to use their IDE plugins to see the effects
of your advice. They only have plugins for Eclipse, JBuilder, Emacs, and
Forte. When IntelliJ matures/releases its API, they will create a plugin for
it.

> 3) the inability to do runtime changes (everything in AspectJ is
> compiletime)

This will be changed with 2.0 release. They have chosen to not provide
runtime changes because they wanted to exercise the language first.

> 4) I needed the system as a whole to be proxy-based in order to do
> memorymanagement with object caches. Since AspectJ works on regular
> classes that wouldn't work (AFAIK).

You can advise objects as well.

> 5) I wanted to find out if it was possible to implement AOP using plain
> Java.
>

Ok, I'm sure it makes sense for your project. But, I think that AspectJ will
become the defacto standard in the future.

> That's about it I guess.
>
> /Rickard
>
> --
> Rickard Öberg
>
>
>

Re: [Webwork-user] Why I like WebWork

[Rickard <ri...@dr...>]

Matt Baldree wrote:
>>4) I needed the system as a whole to be proxy-based in order to do
>>memorymanagement with object caches. Since AspectJ works on regular
>>classes that wouldn't work (AFAIK).
>=20
> You can advise objects as well.

Hm.. not sure what this has to do with my 4 point. What I meant was that=20
I really needed the proxy/object separation, as in EJB, in order to do=20
memory management. I *don't* want my entire object graph to be in memory=20
all the time.

> Ok, I'm sure it makes sense for your project. But, I think that AspectJ=
 will
> become the defacto standard in the future.

That is quite probable, sure. But I think there's enough room for more=20
implementations than just AspectJ.

/Rickard

--=20
Rickard =D6berg