In message <01e701c15b16$c9eee7d0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Vince nt Massol" writes: >I'd like to ask if anyone sees a problem for using AspectJ >(http://www.aspectj.org) with Cactus ? More specifically the license is MPL >(http://aspectj.org/servlets/AJSite?channel=download&subChannel=license). Is >that a problem ? I don't believe so, but just wanted to be sure.
I don't think there's a problem. Redistributing the support libraries doesn't appear to conflict, but Jon, Sam, and others know better than I what licenses are compatible and which aren't. Is there a list of compatible licenses somewhere on www.apache.org (or did I just accidentally volunteer to put one together)? >If it works, I think a lot of jakarta projects may find aspectj very useful. The main issue for me up until recently has been that AspectJ has been changing too fast to rely on for significant development purposes. Now that it's stabilized, my main concern is with efficiency (how good is the generated byte-code, how intrusive is the use of reflection, etc.). So I'd tend to use AOP with AspectJ for testing, where I can compile without aspects for production use. Using it in Cactus is probably an excellent fit. I just wonder how ready Java programmers are to adopt AOP at this stage. If you use AOP under the covers in a development library, users of the software aren't going to care. But if the development library includes an aspect library requiring the use of the AspectJ compiler, I wonder if programmers will shy away from it because of the additional learning curve and its "non-standard" nature. At any rate, it will be interesting to see how AOP makes its way into Java, C++, and other OOP languages over time. daniel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
