From: Trans <transfire@...>
Date: 2005-10-21T08:16:59+09:00
Subject: Re: Cut-based AOP


Alexandru Popescu wrote:
> Most probably my comments are missinterpretted. I am not trying to argue the value behind the RCR.
> Neither I contradict it's power. I am just trying to point that it is missing important features.
> Once we agree on this, the discussion may proove fruitful. Otherwise, there is no reason to continue it.

I have already agreed. We are not promising the world. Like I said we
focused on most common potential uses.

> I surely would like to write my own one. As said I am not ruby expert, and when time back I was
> asking for the community help (and should I mention that I asked your personal help?) on this matter
> I got some form of refusal in the form: you can do this trick and that trick and you will have
> something that is AOP. No, it is not; but I can go on with my life :-).

Alexandru, we are busy too. And we have our own ideas too. If you
really want to do this, then okay. I am not against helping. But I have
a lot on my plate and must squeeze in. Also if you want to manipulate
core, I'm not really the goto man, I code Ruby. Peter's the C expert. I
understand what you are saying, I'm not trying discourage you, but I'm
not a big believer in the Aspect/J-kind of design. It's heavy
"top-down". An that's what I was trying to say before. I think there's
more fluidity in "build-up". You might look at that as tricks, but
those tricks are they very thing you will use to build a
full-framework. How do I know? Because I've basically done it.

> Now, comments inlined:
>
> I was not talking about innexistent good frameworks in Ruby. I was talking about the principles of a
>   new framework.

Okay.

> I have still to disagree with this percentages. But for the moment, it is not
> so important.

Sure. That's fine.

> Ohhh... I got the idea... but I am wondering where is that "simple 1 line of code" :-).

Hey, I said I could write *a* pointcut not *any* pointcut. Besides I
wanted to give you a show! :)

> Moreover: a pointcut is not expressed only in terms of class and methods. I don't call my methods
> 'database'. And I am wondering where is the modularity of this piece of code. How can I reuse it?
> (copy and paste?)

You expected all that in one line of code? :) Beside you did not
specify those things.

> I am stopping now, as I may already sound harsh and this is not my intention.

Well, I hope you are not put off. It is a good discussion.

> I surely would prefere to write instead of the above script:
>
> class TransactionAspect < AOP::Aspect
> 	pointcut: transactionalMethod => "*#save*(..) || *#delete*(..)"
>
> 	before: transactionalMethod
> 	def assureTransaction
> 		[...]
> 	end
> end

I have written parts of very similar framework. Others have too. What
is "new" about your framework? I would be interested to hear. Why don't
you contact me private email. We can discuss and I can see how much I
can help if you really want. I am certainly not against an interesting
full framework, but such just doesn't deter from Cuts.

Thanks,
T.