Re: [aspectj-users] Status of using XML config, as opposed to language-b

[Michael Nascimento <misterm@xxxxxxxxx>]

Abstract aspects require users to code aspects, which is something
that should be avoided sometimes (in my case, for example). It is not
exactly the same thing.

Regards,
Michael

On 4/22/05, Rafal Krzewski <Rafal.Krzewski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Michael Nascimento wrote:
> 
> > If users had to touch the aspects source code for that, I'd consider
> > it bad design. Besides that, most of them would be totally tainted by
> > LGPL by now (which we are tainted by, btw, but that's a whole
> > different issue). I'm glad AW allows users to change the way aspects
> > affect their classes without touching source code and I really would
> > like to see it in AJ as well.
> 
> AspectJ answer to that are abstract aspects. The users have them in a
> copiled jar and don't need the source code for just using them.
> 
> The application source code contains concrete aspects that extend
> abstract aspects defined by the library. The concrete aspects provide
> concrete, application specific pointcut definitions and application
> specific abstract method implementation left as "hooks" by the library
> developer.
> 
> This does not handle LGPL taint and deployment time configuration
> concerns, but it surely does handle the concern source code separation.
> 
> Rafal
> _______________________________________________
> aspectj-users mailing list
> aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>