RE: [aspectj-users] Drawbacks of AOP

["Ismaeil, Sameh Z" <sameh.ismaeil@xxxxxxx>]

> 
> I second this opinion.  They way I see it AOP is extremely 
> complimentary 
> to OOP.  AOP can be used to make your objects way cleaner and more 
> reusable.  Although maybe I just don't grok what "pure AOP" 
> even means...

Neither do I, but I'm just brainstorming ;)

Ok, I'll give it a shot. I guess a pure AOP language is the one that tries
to overcome fallacies of OOP. Inheritance is sometimes overrated. Have you
tried the Hirarchical View of Visual Age? For a class that has inherited so
much things, if you try to view all its inherited methods you get lost, and
if you try to view only his methods you don't get the full picture. The
feature that is supposed to help you ends up confusing you. Also overriding
sometimes confuses the programmer.

Now with a feature like AOP's Introduction I can separate my concerns
better. I determine exactly which class I put which methods into. In a pure
AOP language you might even be able to determine that the methods introduced
should only be introduced to a parent class but not his children (while
still accessible from outside), so we can overcome the behavior-bulking
problem of inheritance.

> 
> lists wrote:
> 
> > I would disagree. I think OOP and AOP both have their 
> place. Not only 
> > that, but AOP is inherently dependent upon some sort of 
> structure to 
> > join to!
> >
> >
> >
> > -------Original Message-------
> > > From: Ismaeil, Sameh Z <sameh.ismaeil@xxxxxxx>
> > > Subject: RE: [aspectj-users] Drawbacks of AOP
> > > Sent: 15 Apr 2003 10:18:22
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think these problems exist because we are in (still the 
> beginning 
> > of) a
> > > hybrid-languages phase. AOP tools are used over OOP 
> languages. The 
> > next big
> > > language might be more pure AOP, e.g. it might not even have class
> > > inheritance; where aspects apply on single-level classes. At this 
> > time there
> > > sure will be some way to structure as pects so as to 
> facilitate the 
> > work of
> > > IDE's (as in OOP IDE's now). In all cases the next-phase pure-AOP 
> > languages
> > > will be more and more dependant on the tool while having 
> less and less
> > > influence of the language syntax.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi everybody!
> > > >
> > > > I think there is a difference in OO and AOP. In OO, you have a
> > > > structured way to find out which method is actually 
> called by simply
> > > > making your way up the inheritance hierarchy.
> > > >
> > > > In AOP you can not do that, at least not as it is implemented in
> > > > AspectJ. Without tool support you might not even be aware of
> > > > an aspect
> > > > influencing (or even replacing) a method you are calling.
> > > >
> > > > Any aspect can globally influence any method of the system.
> > > > There is no
> > > > structured way to find out what functionality is 
> actually executed by
> > > > reading the source of a class anymore.
> > > >
> > > > So I think the problem about "awareness" is quite important -
> > > > that's why
> > > > there is so much effort to create tools to reveal this 
> influence.
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards,
> > > >     Max
> > > >
> > > > Robert Wenner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >I wonder how much this "aware of the aspect" problem 
> counts in some
> > > > >years...
> > > > >
> > > > >After all, we already got used to overwriting methods.
> > > > >Or does anybody reject OO because it isn't   as obvious as in
> > > > >traditional C programming which method will in fact be called?
> > > > >
> > > > >Robert
> > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > >aspectj-users mailing list
> > > > >aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > >http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
> > > > >  
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Maximilian Stoerzer
> > > > Lehrstuhl Software Systeme - FMI - University of Passau
> > > > Tel: +49 851 509 3096, eMail: stoerzer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>