From: John Lam <drjflam@...>
Date: 2006-03-31T13:27:21+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby and AOP

------=_Part_14766_31144565.1143779239329
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Another distinction is that AspectJ and related technologies use a "push"
approach to weave aspects into different join-points in the code. In the
case of a mixin, it's more of a "pull" approach where you have to walk up t=
o
the type that you want to add the mixin functionality to.

I spent a lot of time a few years ago implementing a runtime aspect-weaving
extension to the CLR - that had a lot of potential - you could weave code
into the middle of a running system, and then yank it back out when you wer=
e
done. Great for doing things like injecting diagnostic probes into a
corrupted system to perform post-mortem diagnosis.

-John
http://www.iunknown.com


Yes, it's like a mixin but on more than a 'class' level.  It's
> cross-cutting(to use the jargon) across class hierarchies.
>
> Basically AOP allows a further and different separation of concerns in
> a software system.  Think of transactions and security as better uses
> of AoP.  An object should be able to participate in a transaction
> without ever knowing it's been in one.  Log writing is the 'Hello
> World'  of AoP.
>
> I've used AoP for Logging and exception tracing at runtime of working
> systems.
>
> Ron Bodkin and Ramnivas Laddad have excellent blogs on AoP.
>

------=_Part_14766_31144565.1143779239329--