[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [aspectj-users] Default EJB Implementation: OOP vs. AOP

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 base class.


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 calss.

(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.)

Best regards,

aspectj-users mailing list