Re: [aspectj-users] Q about "adviceexecution" and "declare error"

[Kevin F <aj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Title: Re: [aspectj-users] Q about "adviceexecution" and "declare error"

Hi Eric,

I don’t mean to butt in on your conversation and may have missed some of the leading conversation; however, I believe the point is this: is it better to implement certain things by making changes throughout the base implementation or to violate encapsulation so that the single concern can be addressed in one place?  I know that I’ve had my share of weeks consulting on different projects where I joined the project and was tasked to analysis exactly the crosscutting concerns addressed by AspectJ through the use of elaborate scripts and manual intervention.  In my consulting (usually as the guy called in to rescue a train wreck), it has been common place to a single change in more than 100 files.

Any technology can be misused.  I can use JNI to circumvent encapsulation, but it doesn’t mean that JNI should be removed from Java.

Kevin   

---

From: Eric Bodden <eric.bodden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: <aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:57:32 -0500
To: <aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [aspectj-users] Q about "adviceexecution" and "declare error"

Yes, it's exactly this view you mention which I meant. A proper component can be deployed in whatever context. As long as this context adheres to the component's component model, this component is known to work and moreover the outside world can see nothing more but its interface. This is not true for a program that is deployed in the context of a general AspectJ program. The aspects can see and modify anything they like. A class/package/component has no means of hiding implementation details and in fact a lot of aspects rely extracting context information from directly inside those classes, which is IMHO sometimes quite worrisome w.r.t. independent development of both, aspects and base code.

Eric

On 2/26/07, Matthew Webster < matthew_webster@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:matthew_webster@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:

Eric,

>If you want to give static guarantees, it's just painful and that's
>what many people are worried about.
But you _can_ make static guarantees about the AspectJ program. What you seem to be describing is the trouble with making such guarantees about a Java program that is later deployed and executed as an AspectJ program. My comment about reflection related to privileged aspects but again you can make static guarantees unlike with reflection.

Matthew Webster
AOSD Project
Java Technology Centre, MP146
IBM United Kingdom Limited
Hursley Park, Winchester,  SO21 2JN, England
Telephone: +44 196 2816139 (external) 246139 (internal)


"Eric Bodden" <eric.bodden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: aspectj-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 22/02/2007 20:29

Please respond to
aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx

To

aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx

cc

Subject

Re: [aspectj-users] Q about "adviceexecution" and "declare error"






On 2/22/07, Matthew Webster < matthew_webster@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:matthew_webster@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
>
> Eric,
>
> I was aware of the work on open modules but have not read the papers you refer to. Perhaps I should. However I do not believe any new controls are necessary because Java in conjunction with a runtime modularity framework like OSGi already provides sufficient mechanisms. This is why I am working on AOSGi (http://www.eclipse.org/equinox/incubator/aspects/).

Oh, sounds interesting. I will have a look at it.

>
> >I know whole research communities which believe that not being able to
>  >guarantee any sort of encapsulation by far the largest problem of
>  >AspectJ.
> I not believe AspectJ breaks encapsulation any more than Java reflection.

Well, that might be true but a lot of people would say that reflection
is bad style for almost everything but a few distinct use cases, too.
If you want to give static guarantees, it's just painful and that's
what many people are worried about.

Eric

--
Eric Bodden
Sable Research Group
McGill University, Montréal, Canada
_______________________________________________
aspectj-users mailing list
aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users

---

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU








_______________________________________________
aspectj-users mailing list
aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx  <mailto:aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users

--
Eric Bodden
Sable Research Group
McGill University, Montréal, Canada

---

_______________________________________________
aspectj-users mailing list
aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users