Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-geronimo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 59871 invoked by uid 500); 8 Aug 2003 12:51:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact geronimo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 59626 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2003 12:51:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kermit.resellerhub.net) (64.62.140.73) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Aug 2003 12:51:54 -0000 Received: from [61.11.17.69] (helo=diginote) by kermit.resellerhub.net with smtp (Exim 4.20) id 19l6if-0003Uz-T7 for geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org; Fri, 08 Aug 2003 18:21:46 +0530 From: "Dhananjay Nene" To: Subject: RE: Aspect based design ? Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 18:23:05 +0530 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - kermit.resellerhub.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - incubator.apache.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - dnene.com X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > On Friday, August 8, 2003, at 09:51 am, Stefan Arentz wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 19:30, James Strachan wrote: > > > > Personally I don't care much (yet) about a service for users of the > > servers but I think it should be given some serious thoughts for > > container development. > > Agreed. Though lets get the J2EE server ready first then lets figure > out how to weave J2EE aspects nicely into POJOs later on - or in a > separate parallel project. > > Incidentally if there was gonna be some J2EE aspects, they should > hopefully be mostly J2EE standard apsects and so work with any J2EE > container right? So maybe its time for a separate AspectJ2ee project? > I'm sure Geronimo could eventually supply some custom Geronimo-specific > aspects later on down the road. > Assuming one started development without any existing code, AOP would deliver two advantages. a. For Developers - Offer a better mechanism of expressing cross cutting design constructs and thus the code b. For Developers and End users - Offer a better mechanism of expressing geronimo features which can be perceived to be cross cutting for the users. The most obvious ones here are transaction / security / logging / persistence etc. An aspect based design would support a scenario where geronimo ships with j2ee aspects, and would allow "unsatisfied" users to tweak the aspects or write their own. I believe it would be important to have a considered strategy on whether such a feature would be required and if so how and when should it be brought in. The implementation could be phased, but if the approach isnt in place, then it may never take off. Hence I dont think one can "defer" this issue. You do bring out an interesting option of a separate AspectJ2EE project, but I think it would be useful to consider how such a project could cooperate with geronimo for example. I suspect making aspects into a separate project and hoping that they would cooperate nicely with geronimo would be a lot harder than it seems. I ask myself - how would I build a new container from scratch today, and I am unable to really have a satisfactory answer which does not involve aspects.