Re: [PROPOSAL] lifecycle release

Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 March 2003 17:55, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> 
>>  /*+ */ --> metadata
>>
>>[there is no single-line metadata comment]
>>
>>  //[...] --> single-line AOP
>>  /*[...] */ --> multiple-line AOP
>>
>>where [...] is the aspect associated with it
>>
>>                                - o -
>>
>>the above would, for example, solve the current cocoon issues with
>>making the flow and the instrumentation modular.
>>
>>and could well be implemented with a code prepreprocessor.
>>
>>but there is something in the back of my mind that keeps setting my
>>elegance alarms off and I don't know what this is.
>>
>>One thing if for sure: the java syntax was not designed to be aspect
>>orientable. so every solution will be partially hacky. We have to accept
>>his until the new best-of-breed language comes around.
> 
> 
> What is the difference between "language hacks in comments" with its 
> special-purpose compiler AND using aspect-orientation (or other 
> non-mainstream) languages?

If a language syntax is designed around a particular feature, the 
overall impression is elegance. Otherwise, the impression is hacky-ness.

> Or even to enforce a particular tool, such as UML, which embedd metadata in 
> source comments, but present it in GUI?

Pfff, you won't hear that suggestion from me.

> No matter which approach, it is IMHO very "awkward", and raises the bar for 
> newcomers to a project by a magnitude or two, as a new completely foreign 
> concept has to be assimilated (in parallel with the codebase itself) by such 
> individual. KISS ;o)

I bet the people first proposing object orientation in a world of C 
coders had to face the same comments :)

> Just 0.02sen of ME not being able to comprehend the full extent of this 
> proposal.

Well, this is because this thread is very much diluted into an 'how to 
do AOP in java' which has only very little to do with the title.

Stefano.