[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [aspectj-dev] Re: Outcomings or not-outcomings of the perobjects BOF
- From: Eric Bodden <eric@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:57:16 +0100
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Organization: RWTH Aachen University
- Thread-index: AcUu16H1nvQB142iTTuQ+hsSgpqV3AAA6scg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Enrique J. Amodeo Rubio wrote:
> I would like to know about your opinion about this kind of changes.
> I can understand that it could involve major reengineering and be
> deferred to later versions, but I'll like to know if there will be
> changes in AspectJ to allow more complex aspect associations and
> how difficult they are.
Thanks for your comment on this. Actually I found your approach
pretty reasonable. It looks indeed quite natural to me. However I am
pretty much sure, that the respriction to *static* inner aspects was
done by purpose. Maybe one of the developers may comment on this. I
am sure there are implementation issues involved.
Meanwhile I got a really very cool solution by one of the developers
of CaesarJ, which allows for explicit aspect deployment. See my blog
for details. Maybe that could give some inspirations...
Chair I2 for Programming Languages and Program Analysis
RWTH Aachen University
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----