FW: Any progress on model2 without "extends Aspect"?

Hi Guys,

Can you comment on this below? I sent it last week but got not response
so far. I really need to know whether it can be achieved or not. If not,
it'll have some strong consequences on Cactus2 architecture and I need
to know now.

Thanks
-Vincent

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vincent Massol [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 16 January 2004 16:03
> To: 'aspectwerkz-devel-81qHHgoATdGxIXFVlbCvtR2eb7JE58TQ@public.gmane.org'
> Subject: Any progress on model2 without "extends Aspect"?
> 
> Hi Jonas,
> 
> You may remember we discussed this some time ago and you said you'll
see
> what can be done about it... I'm just following up on it :-)
> 
> What I would like is to be able to write (model 2 syntax):
> 
> /**
>  * @Aspect perJVM
>  */
> public MyTest extends TestCase
> {
> [...]
> Pointcut xxx
> [...]
> 
> or even better
> 
> public MyTest extends TestCase
> {
> [...]
> Pointcut xxx
> [...]
> 
> Notice that you normally need to write "extends Aspect". However, in
this
> case there is already an "extends" and the class being extended does
not
> belong to my code (and thus I cannot make it extend Aspect).
> 
> A better example is provided at
>
http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/vmassol/archives/000520_cactus_v2_archi
te
> cture_proposal.html#cactus_test_case (see figures 3 and 4).
> 
> What I would really like is that users of Cactus2 can use AspectWerkz
> directly. But for this to become a reality we need to work a bit to
make
> it as easy as possible for end users. Otherwise, there'll be no other
> solution that to wrap it in "yet another API". I'd rather not to this.
> 
> Maybe one way would be to tell AspectC or AspectWerkzC what are the
> Aspects (BTW, this is already done in AspectWerkzC by passing the xml
> definition file, no?)?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -Vincent
> Wanna see JUnit in Action?
> (http://manning.com/massol)