Home » Language IDEs » AspectJ » AspectJ vs. AOP frameworks
| AspectJ vs. AOP frameworks [message #32076] |
Sat, 20 March 2004 07:37  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: agent.smith.matrix.com
I've seen that a lot of AOP frameworks exist. I wonder why there are so
many. AspectJ seems to be a very good AOP implementation in my eyes. Why
would someone prefer an AOP framework to AspectJ?
I am interested in the pros and cons of AspectJ and AOP frameworks. Is there
any article comparing them?
Personally I dislike implementations of AOP as a framework. The best thing
would be in my eyes, if Java would natively support AOP. This would require
that the core Java programming language is extended. The result would look
similiar to AspectJ. The second best solution in my eyes is using AspectJ.
After this (the third best), I consider using a good AOP framework better
than not using AOP at all. The larger the project, the more helpful AOP is.
What do you think about the topics I mentioned above, especially about the
pros and cons of AspectJ compared to AOP frameworks.
|
|
|
| Re: AspectJ vs. AOP frameworks [message #32214 is a reply to message #32076] |
Wed, 24 March 2004 21:22  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: rhill2_._free.fr
Mister Smith,
a bit late reply b/c i dont browse the newsgroups on a regular basis..
what i see when i read you is lots of unargumented assumptions. first,
you seem to differentiate AOP *implementations* from AOP *frameworks*.
id appreciate if you could explicit that one.
for instance, altho AspectWerkz presents itself as an AOP framework (and
sure it is framework), in which way does it in your sense differ from
aspectj ? actually they seem to take the same path with the attribdefs
way of declaring poincuts and advices.
(please correct me if im wrong) i think that what you refer as
frameworks are tools which offer an api to easily manipulate the aspect
system at runtime, dont you ? if so, does it seem unappropriate to you ?
second you seem to place aspectj high above other implementations : why
that ? "Personally I dislike implementations of AOP as a framework"
well, we'd gladly hear why..
last : you seem to take aspectj as the natural way of doing aop, however
aswpectwerkz or jasco clearly show its not the case, dont you think so ?
dont take me wrong, i like aspectj but i know it is not the only way of
doing things..
regards,
-- gd
Agent Smith wrote:
> I've seen that a lot of AOP frameworks exist. I wonder why there are so
> many. AspectJ seems to be a very good AOP implementation in my eyes. Why
> would someone prefer an AOP framework to AspectJ?
>
> I am interested in the pros and cons of AspectJ and AOP frameworks. Is there
> any article comparing them?
>
> Personally I dislike implementations of AOP as a framework. The best thing
> would be in my eyes, if Java would natively support AOP. This would require
> that the core Java programming language is extended. The result would look
> similiar to AspectJ. The second best solution in my eyes is using AspectJ.
> After this (the third best), I consider using a good AOP framework better
> than not using AOP at all. The larger the project, the more helpful AOP is.
>
> What do you think about the topics I mentioned above, especially about the
> pros and cons of AspectJ compared to AOP frameworks.
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: AspectJ vs. AOP frameworks [message #32249 is a reply to message #32214] |
Wed, 24 March 2004 22:23 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: agent.smith.matrix.com
I didn't know I could be misunderstood.
AspectJ is a compiler based implementation of AOP, right? You need a special
compiler to compile the Aspect files. AspectJ extends the Java language in a
way.
Then there are frameworks which do not need a special compiler, every java
compiler can be used. They don't extend the Java language the way AspectJ
does. Correct?
So if I am correct, we can distinguish the compiler based implementation of
AOP and the framework based implementation. A implementation of AOP can be a
framework based solution (Nanning?) or a compiler based solution (AspectJ).
I don't know AspectWerkz or Jasco. I hardly know AspectJ!
As a beginner I am confused about the many AOP products out there and why
some are compiler based and why some are framework based.
I asked you for the differences between the AOP implementations, the pros
and cons of the AOP implementations. Please don't discuss with me about it
since I am still a beginner concerning AOP.
I think you will easily understand me with a little fault-tolerant reading
of my text.
|
|
|
| Re: AspectJ vs. AOP frameworks [message #32282 is a reply to message #32249] |
Wed, 24 March 2004 23:19 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: rhill2_._free.fr
Agent Smith wrote:
> I didn't know I could be misunderstood.
>
> AspectJ is a compiler based implementation of AOP, right? You need a special
> compiler to compile the Aspect files. AspectJ extends the Java language in a
> way.
>
> Then there are frameworks which do not need a special compiler, every java
> compiler can be used. They don't extend the Java language the way AspectJ
> does. Correct?
>
> So if I am correct, we can distinguish the compiler based implementation of
> AOP and the framework based implementation. A implementation of AOP can be a
> framework based solution (Nanning?) or a compiler based solution (AspectJ).
>
actually thats not exactly the case. since aop isnot integrated into the
language you need some special drudgery to weave your aspects : thats
the role of the compiler/weaver. aspectj, as well as jasco, extend java
for that purpose, whereas aw only needs regular classes and a few
javadoc tags. in each case there is a subjacent framework that provides
informations about the context (in the case of an interception), and
eventually might provide hooks to control runtime
deploiement/applicability of the aspects (i dont know jboss aop but
afaik aspect deploiement is controlled through jmx, so it might be
possible to easily extend that behaviour). actually nanning is a bit
different, but imo is barely usable for end users in its current state,
also it doesnot seem to be actively maintained ; the functionnalities
provided imo are not aimed at the final developers (way too complex and
not declarative enough) but for developers of higher-level tools which
would expose only a subset of the framework in one form or another.
> I don't know AspectWerkz or Jasco. I hardly know AspectJ!
>
> As a beginner I am confused about the many AOP products out there and why
> some are compiler based and why some are framework based.
>
> I asked you for the differences between the AOP implementations, the pros
> and cons of the AOP implementations. Please don't discuss with me about it
> since I am still a beginner concerning AOP.
>
> I think you will easily understand me with a little fault-tolerant reading
> of my text.
sorry if i may been rude, that was not my intent.
regards,
-- gd
|
|
|
| Re: AspectJ vs. AOP frameworks [message #576615 is a reply to message #32076] |
Wed, 24 March 2004 21:22 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: rhill2_._free.fr
Mister Smith,
a bit late reply b/c i dont browse the newsgroups on a regular basis..
what i see when i read you is lots of unargumented assumptions. first,
you seem to differentiate AOP *implementations* from AOP *frameworks*.
id appreciate if you could explicit that one.
for instance, altho AspectWerkz presents itself as an AOP framework (and
sure it is framework), in which way does it in your sense differ from
aspectj ? actually they seem to take the same path with the attribdefs
way of declaring poincuts and advices.
(please correct me if im wrong) i think that what you refer as
frameworks are tools which offer an api to easily manipulate the aspect
system at runtime, dont you ? if so, does it seem unappropriate to you ?
second you seem to place aspectj high above other implementations : why
that ? "Personally I dislike implementations of AOP as a framework"
well, we'd gladly hear why..
last : you seem to take aspectj as the natural way of doing aop, however
aswpectwerkz or jasco clearly show its not the case, dont you think so ?
dont take me wrong, i like aspectj but i know it is not the only way of
doing things..
regards,
-- gd
Agent Smith wrote:
> I've seen that a lot of AOP frameworks exist. I wonder why there are so
> many. AspectJ seems to be a very good AOP implementation in my eyes. Why
> would someone prefer an AOP framework to AspectJ?
>
> I am interested in the pros and cons of AspectJ and AOP frameworks. Is there
> any article comparing them?
>
> Personally I dislike implementations of AOP as a framework. The best thing
> would be in my eyes, if Java would natively support AOP. This would require
> that the core Java programming language is extended. The result would look
> similiar to AspectJ. The second best solution in my eyes is using AspectJ.
> After this (the third best), I consider using a good AOP framework better
> than not using AOP at all. The larger the project, the more helpful AOP is.
>
> What do you think about the topics I mentioned above, especially about the
> pros and cons of AspectJ compared to AOP frameworks.
>
>
|
|
| |
| Re: AspectJ vs. AOP frameworks [message #576718 is a reply to message #32249] |
Wed, 24 March 2004 23:19 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: rhill2_._free.fr
Agent Smith wrote:
> I didn't know I could be misunderstood.
>
> AspectJ is a compiler based implementation of AOP, right? You need a special
> compiler to compile the Aspect files. AspectJ extends the Java language in a
> way.
>
> Then there are frameworks which do not need a special compiler, every java
> compiler can be used. They don't extend the Java language the way AspectJ
> does. Correct?
>
> So if I am correct, we can distinguish the compiler based implementation of
> AOP and the framework based implementation. A implementation of AOP can be a
> framework based solution (Nanning?) or a compiler based solution (AspectJ).
>
actually thats not exactly the case. since aop isnot integrated into the
language you need some special drudgery to weave your aspects : thats
the role of the compiler/weaver. aspectj, as well as jasco, extend java
for that purpose, whereas aw only needs regular classes and a few
javadoc tags. in each case there is a subjacent framework that provides
informations about the context (in the case of an interception), and
eventually might provide hooks to control runtime
deploiement/applicability of the aspects (i dont know jboss aop but
afaik aspect deploiement is controlled through jmx, so it might be
possible to easily extend that behaviour). actually nanning is a bit
different, but imo is barely usable for end users in its current state,
also it doesnot seem to be actively maintained ; the functionnalities
provided imo are not aimed at the final developers (way too complex and
not declarative enough) but for developers of higher-level tools which
would expose only a subset of the framework in one form or another.
> I don't know AspectWerkz or Jasco. I hardly know AspectJ!
>
> As a beginner I am confused about the many AOP products out there and why
> some are compiler based and why some are framework based.
>
> I asked you for the differences between the AOP implementations, the pros
> and cons of the AOP implementations. Please don't discuss with me about it
> since I am still a beginner concerning AOP.
>
> I think you will easily understand me with a little fault-tolerant reading
> of my text.
sorry if i may been rude, that was not my intent.
regards,
-- gd
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed Sep 25 16:19:30 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03866 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
