commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Berin Loritsch <blorit...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [clazz] Scope?
Date Sun, 27 Oct 2002 05:51:53 GMT
John Yu wrote:
> I've been following the threads on [clazz]. There're many intriguing 
> ideas floating around. However, it is still unclear to me what/how the 
> package tries to achieve in concrete terms. What's described in 
> "proposal.html" is pretty abstract.
> 
> (But I understand the project is still at an "exploring" stage and 
> various ideas are been explored.)
> 
> It seems to me [clazz] tries to deal with the following areas:
> 
> WHATS:
>    * Implement a clone of delegators (aka bound method references).
>    * Implement some doclet-like meta-attributes for "annotating" Java 
> classes; these meta-attributes are sort of orthogonal to the object model.
>    * Generalize java.lang.reflect.* and java.beans.*; this seems to be a 
> followup work of BeanUtils.
>    * Provide a generic metaclass framework capable of altering class 
> definitions at runtime. Very ambitious!
> (Of course, a metaclass framework is a superset of all. If this can be 
> done, all the other will fall into places.)
> 
> HOWS:
>    * Source code pre-processing and generation
>    * Byte-code generation via BCEL
>    * Dynamic Proxy
> Have I missed anything? (Avalon has been mentioned many times in the 
> threads. I'm not familiar with Alavon. I may have misunderstood stuff.)

That's my fault.  Some of the code comes from Avalon.  The Avalon team have
a head start on *how* attribute enabled programming helps solve real world
problems--esp. in a component environment.

You don't need a full understanding of Avalon to figure out how clazz can
help you, though.  If you need further explanation, let me know.

The two features that I really want are the delegates (which the Avalon
team is willing to donate), and attributes attached to the classes.

> 
> If a generic metaclass framework is the goal, I'd suggest to take a look 
> of some existing meta-object protocols (MOP) as they have strong 
> theoretical foundations. Two MOPs come to my minds are IBM's SOM C++ 
> metaclass framework 
> (http://www2.parc.com/csl/groups/sda/projects/reflection96/docs/forman/forman.pdf) 
> and OpenJava (http://www.csg.is.titech.ac.jp/openjava/).
> 
> Anyway, back to my question: Do we need to clarify the scope?
> 

The metaclass framework is a good thing.  I think that should be the
core focus.

-- 

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
  deserve neither liberty nor safety."
                 - Benjamin Franklin


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message