[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [aspectj-users] Default EJB Implementation: OOP vs. AOP
- From: Nicholas Lesiecki <ndlesiecki@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:34:24 -0700
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
There isn't really an advantage other than the multiple inheritance
IMHO. But that can be quite useful if you need your EJB to inherit from
a non-EJB base class. The standard implementations of EJB methods are
all pretty basic and I would make the case that they are better
represented as a mix in style aspectj interface than as an abstract
On Apr 29, 2004, at 2:33 AM, Steffen Euch wrote:
I don't understand the advantage of a default EJB implementation with
AOP over a solution with pure OOP.
In "Enterprise Aspect-Oriented Programming with AspectJ"
(http://newaspects.com/presentations/) it is suggested to implement
empty EJB callback methods using AspectJ. An interface is used that
implements the methods. With declare parents all SessionBeans are
advised to implement this interface.
What is the advantage of this implementation? I can do the same thing
with a simple OOP super class as well. My Beans just extend this super
(Ok, with the AOP-interface-solution multiple inheritance is possible.
But that is no convincing argument to me. I don't need multiple
inheritance in my EJBs.)
aspectj-users mailing list