From: Francis Cianfrocca <garbagecat10@...>
Date: 2006-08-28T03:39:32+09:00
Subject: Re: Matz' Wild Ideas: Annotations

------=_Part_22746_12676466.1156703969436
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On 8/27/06, Matt Todd <chiology@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  I understand and agree with you, Francis: annotations open up quite a
> bit. In fact, it's a step towards good AOP (Aspect Oriented
> Programming). (Or am I thinking of another term... crap, where's my
> PragProg book!?)

I think the annotation style opens up a more "vertical" way of injecting
behavior than the "horizontal" aspect-oriented style, which to be candid has
never really convinced me. But imagine for example that you had a container
that could invoke methods on Ruby objects in response to messages sent by
other processes on other machines. The programmer of the contained object
could use annotations to signal the need for specific behaviors (like
persistence, authorization or logging) from the container. AOP can be used
to do similar things but I think you'd probably have less fine-grained
control.

------=_Part_22746_12676466.1156703969436--