On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 07:59, Erik Hatcher wrote: > I'm a total newbie to AspectJ and would have quite a learning curve to come > up to speed with it myself, but its something I'm going to dig into one way > or another.
It is fairly neat :) It requires much more global knowledge from developers - I have only used it in small projects and that was fine. I would be interested to see how well it scales. Anyone got any experience with it in largish code-bases? > The cost of adopting it is only among the committers and contributors, not > among general users of Ant. But I hope to make it much easier to become a "developer" in the future - at least make it easier to write tasks and so forth. So requiring every user to use the aspectj compiler is too prohibitive IMHO. > The same argument could have been made about using abstract classes and > other OO techniques or any of the design patterns - its much less complex > to write straight procedural code, why not just use switch statements > instead of this new-fangled abstract factory?!! :) I hear you ;) I want to make it possible to write procedural tasks in TCL/python/javascript/whatever. However we also need to support multi-task environment manipulation in a safe manner (ie Gump or things like our current <recorder/> task). It took me ages to convince anyone that we needed aspects at all and I am not sure everyone agrees yet ;) Using an AspectHandler style approach is fairly common - Servlet, EJB, CORBA all use the same pattern (though they call them Interceptors or Valves or ExecutionChains or whatever). So while it is more complex than strickly needed - I think it should be familiar enough that it is less of an issue. -- Cheers, Pete ------------------------------------------ I just hate 'yes' men, don't you Smithers? ------------------------------------------ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
