From: "Volkmann, Mark" Date: 2003-08-26T02:38:43+09:00 Subject: Re: Aspect oriented Everything? This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C36B20.104169D6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I'm not a particularly experienced Ruby user. I have to do most of my work in Java. It's certainly possible that AOP is more necessary in Java than Ruby. However, let's talk about the use of AOP in Ruby. Suppose you implement an aspect as a mixin and then mix that into many classes. Another application may want to reuse those classes but they may want a different implementation of the mixin. That will require overridding the mixin methods which seems cumbersome. -----Original Message----- From: Ben Giddings [mailto:ben@thingmagic.com] Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 10:18 AM To: ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org Subject: Re: Aspect oriented Everything? Volkmann, Mark wrote: > When AOP is not used there are basically two choices for implementing > functionality like logging, caching, persistence and other so called > crosscutting concerns. You can implement them in every class that needs > them or implement them in a common base class. In Ruby, couldn't you implement them in a mixin module? > Implementing them in a common base class also has the problem of > assuming that reusers want the same implementation. In addition, the > classes may not be related to each other in any way except for how they > wish to implement a given concern. Again, this seems to call for a mixin to me. I would also like to see a practical explanation of how AOP is useful, and how it is better than mixins and stuff. The concept sounds interesting, but I've never seen a convincing argument for it, especially one that deals with the flaws. The biggest problem I have with AOP is that it doesn't often seem to mesh well with the languages that it is applied to. What I saw of the Ruby AspectR stuff is a prime example. Ben --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A.G. Edwards & Sons' outgoing and incoming e-mails are electronically archived and subject to review and/or disclosure to someone other than the recipient. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C36B20.104169D6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Aspect oriented Everything?

I'm not a particularly experienced Ruby user.  I hav= e to do most of my work in Java.  It's certainly possible that AOP is = more necessary in Java than Ruby.

However, let's talk about the use of AOP in Ruby.  S= uppose you implement an aspect as a mixin and then mix that into many class= es.  Another application may want to reuse those classes but they may = want a different implementation of the mixin.  That will require overr= idding the mixin methods which seems cumbersome.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Giddings [mailto:ben@thingmagic.com]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 10:18 AM
To: ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org
Subject: Re: Aspect oriented Everything?


Volkmann, Mark wrote:
> When AOP is not used there are basically two choice= s for implementing
> functionality like logging, caching, persistence an= d other so called
> crosscutting concerns.  You can implement them= in every class that needs
> them or implement them in a common base class.

In Ruby, couldn't you implement them in a mixin module?

> Implementing them in a common base class also has th= e problem of
> assuming that reusers want the same implementation.=   In addition, the
> classes may not be related to each other in any way= except for how they
> wish to implement a given concern.

Again, this seems to call for a mixin to me.

I would also like to see a practical explanation of how A= OP is useful,
and how it is better than mixins and stuff.  The co= ncept sounds
interesting, but I've never seen a convincing argument f= or it,
especially one that deals with the flaws.

The biggest problem I have with AOP is that it doesn't of= ten seem to
mesh well with the languages that it is applied to. = ; What I saw of the
Ruby AspectR stuff is a prime example.

Ben



---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------------------------
A.G. Edwards & Sons' outgoing and incoming e-mails are electronically
archived and subject to review and/or disclosure to someone other
than the recipient.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------------------------
 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C36B20.104169D6--