What he said :-) Dick
On Jul 24, 8:48 am, Jess Holle <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
