Thread: Re: [Webwork-user] Why I like WebWork

SourceForge Headquarters 225 Broadway Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 422-6466

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

AOP ???

---
greetings from
Marc Logemann
Homebase @ www.logemann.info

Hi!

I'm delurking to ask what is surely a daft question but here goes:  if =
not
AspectJ, then what AOP toolkit are you using?

(Obvious answer: having super programming-chops, you've written an AOP =
kit
yourself!  In which case, is this something you may put into the public
domain!?)

Just curious.

Thanks,
Adam

-----Original Message-----
From: Rickard

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 =

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

WATKIN-JONES,ADAM (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex1) wrote:
> I'm delurking to ask what is surely a daft question but here goes:  if =
not
> AspectJ, then what AOP toolkit are you using?
>=20
> (Obvious answer: having super programming-chops, you've written an AOP =
kit
> yourself!  In which case, is this something you may put into the public
> domain!?)

The obvious answer is quite correct. Whether or not it will be=20
opensourced is something that is yet to be determined. We've thought=20
about it. The core of it is really generic, and entirely based on=20
reflection/dynamic proxies. With JDK1.4 the overhead for that is so=20
small that it's rather ok to apply it just about everywhere. And boy oh=20
boy does it rock :-) It's so cool to have an object implement 10=20
interfaces but not have a single class implement more than 1... it's=20
what code reuse ought to be like.

/Rickard

--=20
Rickard =D6berg

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

> AOP ???

sorry, didnt read your explanation in time...

---
greetings from
Marc Logemann
Homebase @ www.logemann.info

Hi Rickard

>WATKIN-JONES,ADAM (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex1) wrote:
>> I'm delurking to ask what is surely a daft question but here goes:  if not
>> AspectJ, then what AOP toolkit are you using?
>>
>> (Obvious answer: having super programming-chops, you've written an AOP kit
>> yourself!  In which case, is this something you may put into the public
>> domain!?)
>
>The obvious answer is quite correct. Whether or not it will be
>opensourced is something that is yet to be determined. We've thought
>about it. The core of it is really generic, and entirely based on
>reflection/dynamic proxies. With JDK1.4 the overhead for that is so
>small that it's rather ok to apply it just about everywhere. And boy oh
>boy does it rock :-) It's so cool to have an object implement 10
>interfaces but not have a single class implement more than 1... it's
>what code reuse ought to be like.
>
>/Rickard

I'm also delurking since this is such a tempting topic!

When you posted your message last year titled:

        '[Meinds-developers] Aspect oriented framework, first go'

at:

        http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/15432/2001/11/0/7186838/

I downloaded the code from:

        http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/meinds/aspects.zip?download

and spent several days playing.  I just kept reading, and reading, and smiling ;)  It
was hugely instructive - many, many thanks for this gift.

So here we are, 6 months later, and you mention your AOP Toolkit -
> The core of it is really generic, and entirely based on reflection/dynamic proxies.
Needless to say, I'm now just full of curiosity!

Has the Toolkit progressed since the 'first go' ? And if so how?
It was so simple in its initial conception, that almost any change would imply a
conceptual adjustment? etc. etc. ??????????????

I for one, would love to see the current version being opensourced!

Roger

Roger Holbrook wrote:
> and spent several days playing.  I just kept reading, and reading, and =
smiling ;)  It
> was hugely instructive - many, many thanks for this gift.
>=20
> So here we are, 6 months later, and you mention your AOP Toolkit -

What I have now is a rewrite of that stuff. It wasn't very scalable=20
(e.g. interceptor/aspect instances couldn't be reused even if they were=20
stateless), and making interceptors Proxy InvocationHandlers just wasn't=20
the best way to do it. What I have now is not only easy to work with,=20
it's scalable (stateless instances can be reused, and object caches can=20
be flushed, like EJB) and fast (during an invocation no objects are=20
created by the framework itself). Other than that the basic semantics is=20
the same as the old framework.

It'd probably be quite trivial to implement an EJB server using it. But,=20
then you'd miss all the good stuff that AOP gives you. As I said, being=20
able to just add interfaces/implementations to an object without=20
actually modifying any code is quite powerful. Ya can't do that in EJB,=20
fer shure.

>>The core of it is really generic, and entirely based on reflection/dyna=
mic proxies.
>=20
> Needless to say, I'm now just full of curiosity!
>=20
> Has the Toolkit progressed since the 'first go' ? And if so how?
> It was so simple in its initial conception, that almost any change woul=
d imply a
> conceptual adjustment? etc. etc. ??????????????
>=20
> I for one, would love to see the current version being opensourced!

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=20
from our main product (which is a content management system). We'd like=20
to test it in our own stuff first, to see if it can be used in a large=20
system effectively. We think so, but need to try to actually know so :-)

/Rickard

--=20
Rickard =D6berg

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

Roger Holbrook wrote:
> I can well understand wanting to test it in you own stuff first - do yo=
u=20
> have any feel for the time scales involved? =20

Probably somewhere in October/November.

> If these are long, is there=20
> anything you would consider making a snapshot of, as you did for the=20
> 'first go'?  I don't wish to sound impatient - I'm just fascinated by=20
> this bit of code!  I happened to bump into the 'first go' soon after I=20
> worked out the Proxy class was 'interesting' - I just hadn't understood=
=20
> quite 'how interesting' it might be :-)

I'll have to check with the others.

> Also off topic, but this time with regard to the content management=20
> system - are you pursuing the JDO / RDF scheme you outlined previously?=
=20

No, we'll be using plain serialisation for the storing, since we have=20
almost no needs at all for queries. The content is just one big tree of=20
objects. It wouldn't be difficult to add a JDO or RDF persistence=20
manager to it however, but right now I don't see what we'd gain from it.=20
We'll see.

> If this is your main product, then presumably you won't be opensourcing=
=20
> this code?=20

Nope, this is actually my first purely closed source project :-) Feels=20
strange really. We might do a developer source license though, or at=20
least an open API for plugins.

/Rickard

--=20
Rickard =D6berg

Rickard wrote:
>> If these are long, is there  anything you would consider making a 
>>snapshot of, as you did for the  'first go'?
>
>I'll have to check with the others.

Many thanks.

>Nope, this is actually my first purely closed source project :-) Feels 
>strange really. We might do a developer source license though, or at 
>least an open API for plugins.

Is there a corporate presence yet - where do we check for news of 
progress?

Roger

Roger Holbrook wrote:
> Many thanks.

No promises ;-)

>> Nope, this is actually my first purely closed source project :-) Feels=
=20
>> strange really. We might do a developer source license though, or at=20
>> least an open API for plugins.
>=20
> Is there a corporate presence yet - where do we check for news of progr=
ess?

Not yet. We created the company a couple of weeks ago, and coding has=20
just begun. The others have already done it before though, so we expect=20
to have something running by mid August. I'll make an announcement when=20
the first release is available for purchase/demo. I'll probably also=20
describe how we're using WebWork, as it seems we will be using it alot,=20
both for applet/server comms and actual page rendering.

/Rickard

--=20
Rickard =D6berg

Peter Kelley wrote:
>Has anyone come up with a good way to hang printable reports off
>webwork actions which supply the report data ?

See the following thread:
http://www.mail-archive.com/web...@li.../msg00766.html

the JasperReports project:
http://jasperreports.sourceforge.net/

and the Jira WebWork item:
http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/webwork/secure/ViewIssue.jspa?key=WW-38

So its obviously a popular topic :-)

Roger

This looks like exactly what I wanted, thanks. I'm going to have a
look at how much work this will be to integrate with WW and if I can't
do that I'll have a go at making it talk to our Versant object
database.

Sunday, July 14, 2002, 8:51:19 AM, Roger Holbrook wrote:

RH> Peter Kelley wrote:
>>Has anyone come up with a good way to hang printable reports off
>>webwork actions which supply the report data ?

RH> See the following thread:
RH> http://www.mail-archive.com/web...@li.../msg00766.html

RH> the JasperReports project:
RH> http://jasperreports.sourceforge.net/

RH> and the Jira WebWork item:
RH> http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/webwork/secure/ViewIssue.jspa?key=WW-38

RH> So its obviously a popular topic :-)

RH> Roger

RH> -------------------------------------------------------
RH> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
RH> Welcome to geek heaven.
RH> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
RH> _______________________________________________
RH> Webwork-user mailing list
RH> Web...@li...
RH> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-user

-- 

regards,
Peter Kelley

MoveIt Pty Ltd    

"If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to
gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, 
teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea."
- Saint-Exupery