On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 07:31, Erik Hatcher wrote: > You don't have to write non-standard Java for your tasks. The aspects > themselves would contain the aspect-specific syntax. And we could build > with or without aspects, which has some interesting side effects of being > able to turn on/off failonerror capability, logging, etc. Why couldn't we > rely on such a tool? We rely on javac. Soon we'll rely on XDoclet. Why > not rely on something like AspectJ if it solves the issues we're > encountering cleaner and more robustly than we could do without it?
It may solve it in a cleaner way but the cost of adopting it is prohitively high given the benefit we will receive from it. Much less complex to use a simple interface based on more familiar designs. > > More importantly it can also handle special case needs like gump and user > > preferences. > > I'm not sure what Gump needs differently. But user preferences shouldn't > be considered a "special case" - it should be built in to the architecture, > no? Well special case or not - user preferences modify the task model prior to an object being instantiated. Gump needs to force tasks to use its ClassLoader etc. Anything that modifies the environment in which a task runs across a selection of tasks should be able to be modeled using an AspectHandler. -- Cheers, Pete --------------------------------------- Be nice to your friends. If it weren't for them, you'd be a complete stranger. --------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
