On 02/18/2011 10:38 PM, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, this idea came up after a blog post I wrote a
while ago
<http://beust.com/weblog/2005/08/09/quantum-software-design/>. Rickard
and I ended up discussing this idea of "quantum software design" in
more depth in the months that followed and I remember him telling me
that this helped him come up with the ideas behind Qi4j.
As you will see if you take the time to read the Qi4j tutorials,
Rickard pushed this idea much further since then.
Just bumping this discussion a bit towards the things I'd like to
discuss... It seems there are two ways of seeing these things (DCI &
consequences): given that they are a way to do things in a better way, one
could think that they are _beyond_ OOP (see Qi4j: "component" vs
"object", "OOP is not really object-oriented, but class-oriented, and a
similar point is in the Artima's article about DCI); others could think
it's just a way to do better OOP, and the only missing parts are not
conceptual, but language support (hence the various approach, extending
Java or moving to a different language). At the time I'm pretty much
with the second group. I mean, AOP is different than OOP because it
introduces some concepts (like concerns, crosscutting...) that are not
objects. In DCI I just see a better way to apply OOP. I'd like to hear
opinions about that, because the point could not be without consequences.
--
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people
[email protected]
--
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.
