[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [aspectj-users] CNET News.com Article on AOP
|
> Is this, the main claim of the article, true?
>
> IBM and JBoss Group have teamed on a software
> development technique they hope to add to Java
> ...
>
> I saw no IBM sources in this article. Ron, do you know
> of any official joint effort by IBM and JBoss Group?
As far as I can tell, the source is solely JBoss. I saw another article in which they made a similar claim (http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/ebusiness/story/0,2000048590,20278900,00.htm).
> Also, does anyone know if Forrester analyst John Meyer
> was talking about AOP when they appended it to
> his quote?
>
> "It's going to be several years before the tool
> industry can adopt the extensions that are approved
> and ratified in the Java (standardization) space
> (and) before people will be ready to adopt"
> aspect-oriented programming.
I believe the reporter called John Meyer and interviewed him for the story, but that is my best guess. He clearly believes that tools integration is key for adoption of AOP.
...
> Also, I didn't realize that BEA itself did this:
>
> BEA last month introduced the WebLogic Aspect Framework[, designed to let Java programmers experiment with AOP ]
>
> I thought Sam Pullara (who happens to be a BEA employee)
> posted it to a weblogic dev list. Does that mean BEA
> introduced it? That makes it sound like a marketed and
> supported feature of WebLogic.
It is distributed by BEA on their dev2dev site: http://dev2dev.bea.com/resourcelibrary/utilitiestools/monitoring.jsp
I believe this is a site for various utilities and tools BEA distributes for developers. The readme does state that it is not supported. I also believe that others at BEA are involved in marketing/tracking interest, but hopefully Sam or Cedric can shed more light.
...
> P.S. - Can we think of a better way to characterize
> AspectJ than "experimental"? I'd think that a few
> years of research, patents, and a thriving community
> including many deployments in commercial contexts is
> something more than that.
I wouldn't (and didn't) characterize it that way myself. This is the assessment of Martin LaMonica, and no one else. It's unfortunate that the phrasing implies I said this.
