kinko wrote: > On Jul 23, 11:56 am, Jess Holle <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I don't actually have any flames for the Posse's AOP response, but Dick >> predicted flames, so I had to put that in the subject :-) >> > I really didnt agree with the opinions voiced on the adoption, or > rather non adoption of AOP. > Have any of the panel ever used a Framework such as Spring of Guice, > do they actually understand how @Transactional works. > AOP is hugely important as an underlying technology *behind* frameworks.
I see it as nearly dead in terms of direct usage (i.e. not hidden under a framework) by normal developers, though. It's just too uncontrolled, untraceable, and, in the case of AspectJ, can have a really dramatic impact on build and tooling requirements. > The vast adoption of these frameworks is alone enough to say AOP is a > success. > I think AOP has been a great success in wide range of issues the > require cross cutting concerns, admin, security , tracing , > transactions etc > Transactional demarkation is not something I would say is 'rare' > either > No, but usage of AOP (e.g. AspectJ) directly is rather limited. For things like transaction demarcation you really want to see an annotation or some such in the source making it clear what sorts of things are going to magically happen -- not have AOP reach in and add behavior without a trace. -- Jess Holle --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
