Rickard wrote: >What I have now is a rewrite of that stuff. It wasn't very scalable >(e.g. interceptor/aspect instances couldn't be reused even if they were >stateless), and making interceptors Proxy InvocationHandlers just >wasn't the best way to do it. What I have now is not only easy to work >with, it's scalable (stateless instances can be reused, and object >caches can be flushed, like EJB) and fast (during an invocation no >objects are created by the framework itself). Other than that the basic >semantics is the same as the old framework.
>See above, it's a lot better/simpler. Who would've thought that >possible.. >Anyway, we've talked about doing the AOP toolkit as a separate thing >from our main product (which is a content management system). We'd like >to test it in our own stuff first, to see if it can be used in a large >system effectively. We think so, but need to try to actually know so :-) I can well understand wanting to test it in you own stuff first - do you have any feel for the time scales involved? If these are long, is there anything you would consider making a snapshot of, as you did for the 'first go'? I don't wish to sound impatient - I'm just fascinated by this bit of code! I happened to bump into the 'first go' soon after I worked out the Proxy class was 'interesting' - I just hadn't understood quite 'how interesting' it might be :-) Also off topic, but this time with regard to the content management system - are you pursuing the JDO / RDF scheme you outlined previously? If this is your main product, then presumably you won't be opensourcing this code? - unless perhaps there are other generic modules? Etc. etc. - ever curious???? Roger ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Gadgets, caffeine, t-shirts, fun stuff. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Webwork-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-user
