----
One thing that I like is that they can disconnect() whatever they attach with dojo.event.connect(). With actsAsAspect(), disconnection is impossible due to the way I'm using closures. However, if I were to go back to my old way of keeping track of before and after functions in arrays, disconnection would become possible again. I'm not sure if I want to go there, yet, though.
I was kind of getting a kick out of the fact that my work was small enough to copy-and-paste. However, if I were to become more serious about it, I don't think I'd be able to do that anymore.
We'll see what happens. If there's a genuine need for extra functionality, changes will be made. And even though I jokingly called this an "arms race", I don't really want to try to try to match some library feature-for-feature just for the sake of being the most powerful, because the last thing I want is for actsAsAspect() to be bloated. I've got a lot to learn about AOP as well, so my current judgement on the matter is not as good as it could be.
On 9/6/06, Sam Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thomas Fuchs wrote:
>"703 bytes vs. AspectJ's 11062114 bytes"
>
>Hear, hear! :)
>
>-Thomas
>
>
You should compare against dojo's event.connect (and kwConnect) too.
(not just size, but api, etc.) That thing is doing a *lot* of work, but
that's what it will inevitably get compared to.
Sam (-i-am)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" 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/rubyonrails-spinoffs
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
