Re: Scope of AOP..
Pascal Costanza <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.programming.aspect.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 7 Apr 2006, at 20:13, [email protected] wrote: >> What makes logging and tracing so different that you think they have >> to be implemented using different mechanisms? > > That's precisely my point. They are only different insofar as > AspectJ-like languages requires us to treat them differently. Any > other > perspective on the system (e.g., requirements, design, base > programmer) > probably treats them the same. To implement tracing in AspectJ-like > languages you just use a call pointcut. However, to implement > logging the > approaches are a) modularize logging completely with fragile and > complicated aspects (100% AOP), b) use dummy methods and robust > aspects > (part OOP and part AOP), and c) use a separate logging API (100% OOP). > > Now we have added a fourth option d) use statement annotations and > robust > aspects (100% AOP). OK, got it. You make the assumption that you only want to log a certain irregular subset of join points, while you want to trace a very regular complete set of join points. That wasn't clear to me. To me tracing can also be about irregular sets of methods. Don't you reintroduce code tangling with your approach? Pascal -- Pascal Costanza, mailto:[email protected], http://p-cos.net Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Programming Technology Lab Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium __________________________________________________ AOSD Discuss mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe go to http://aosd.net Check out the AOSD.net Wiki: http://aosd.net/wiki