geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Strachan <>
Subject Re: [aspects] Re: Reflection Bad, OO and direct Method invocation Good...
Date Mon, 11 Aug 2003 06:28:49 GMT
Agreed. FWIW already AspectWerkz can dynamically weave aspects into 
Java code at deployment time using a special ClassLoader which performs 
the necessary bytecode swizzling to insert the aspects.

On Sunday, August 10, 2003, at 05:10  pm, Jules Gosnell wrote:

> let me subvert this thread a little...
> for the future...
> If  you step back a little and look again at the precompiled and 
> dynamically aggregated containers, I think you would find that they 
> could both  be decomposed into aspects in a pretty similar way. The 
> difference is simply in the choice of how to implement those aspects.
> The thing that I find exciting is that from only a little bit of 
> reading around aspects it looks as if it will soon be possible (if it 
> is not already) to weave the same set of aspects at either compile or 
> deploy/run time. Whether the aspect guys will be able to be as 
> efficient at deploy-time weaving as they can at compile-time is a 
> matter for an aspect list, but I suspect that compile time weaved 
> aspects will not be any slower than a custom compiled container and 
> deploy-time weaving will be considerable more efficient than existing 
> run time interceptor frameworks.
> So, in short, I think that the gap between compile time and deploy 
> time container composition is probably shrinking into irrelevance, 
> which is good news as it means that both teams can concentrate on a 
> single impl - competition is good, but right now I think it should be 
> all hands on deck to get something out there...
> Jules
> Greg Wilkins wrote:
>> Even if we are able to support two or more EJB containers, I would
>> never recommend using different ones for development and deployment.
>> That, as you say, is just asking for inconsistencies to cause grief.
>> But some users may choose to give up the benefits of the dynamics
>> during development for a compiled container - because either they
>> really want/need every nano seconds of latency reduced or because
>> their culture is opposed to dynamics on production machines.
>> If there are really several diametrically opposed ways of doing
>> EJBs - then it would be great if geronimo could support them all.
>> But then I have little idea of the amount of work required to
>> come up with AbstractEJBContainer.
>> cheers
>> Test Account wrote:
>>> Greg,
>>>     Absolutely, that was the gist of what I was trying to say, 
>>> albeit,
>>> somewhat poorly.  You want the fast dynamic development deployment
>>> capabilities while banging out endless refactorings.  But when it 
>>> comes time
>>> to deploy in a scalable environment you may need to eek every last 
>>> drop of
>>> performance, so may need the compiled skeletons.  It would be great 
>>> to have
>>> both.  The problem would be in guaranteeing consistency between the 
>>> two
>>> paths.  I wouldn't want to get differing behavior when running in
>>> development from when running in production.
>>> Enjoy,
>>> Craig
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Wilkins" <>
>>> To: <>
>>> Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 1:07 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Reflection Bad, OO and direct Method invocation Good...
>>>> I don't know if this falls into the "too much choice is a bad thing"
>>>> arena, but would it not be good if we could have both a dynamic 
>>>> jboss
>>>> inspired EJB container and a compiled EJB container (perhaps from
>>>> or inspired by the JOnAS folks??).
>>>> -- 
>>>> Greg Wilkins<>             Phone/fax: +44 
>>>> 7092063462
>>>> Mort Bay Consulting Australia and UK.          
> -- 
> /*************************************
> * Jules Gosnell
> * Partner
> * Core Developers Network (Europe)
> *
> *************************************/


View raw message