From: Clifford Heath <no@...>
Date: 2008-02-25T14:49:56+09:00
Subject: Re: Monkeypatching is Destroying Ruby

Phlip wrote:
> If so, and if it "can't be done in Ruby", why are there Ruby gems that talk 
> about AOP?

Because what's called AOP isn't. There's always a better way
than the injection of code which is referred to as AOP, IMO.
I could argue this at length, but I hope that not many people
here actually care :-).

>> A more restricted version of this behaviour can be done by treating every
>> aspect-limited extension (which I call a facet) of an object, as a special
>> kind of subclass.
> That's probably the Ruby AOP packages. Thanks for the pointers!

If you want to stay in Ruby, you should use traits instead. It's a
little weaker than what I'd call "proper" AOP, but gets as close as
you can meaningfully get.


Clifford Heath.