Denys Duchier wrote:
> My own take on the issue is that the claim that Mozart supports AOP is
> a little overreaching. It's true that Mozart attends to certain
> "aspects" in depth, but it has no linguistic support for AOP. At least
> I don't see it. AspectJ allows you to make declarative statements
> that cut across abstractions and modify existing classes along a
> particular aspect. Were do we have that in Mozart? I can see that by
> following a very specific methodology we could realize the
> architecture of composition filters, but here again, it's not as if
> the language itself supports it (we don't even have libraries for
> that). Basically, I remain unconvinced and I don't think that we
> should make the claim as long as it remains arguably dubious. Sorry.
> Perhaps you want to rephrase.
I know exactly what AspectJ can do. It does purely syntactic manipulations
and in my view will never lead to true AOP, which needs semantic
understanding.
We go MUCH MUCH FARTHER for the aspects of distribution and fault tolerance.
We actually SOLVE THE PROBLEM. So why are you picking nits? Please change
the title to 'Separation of concerns (aspects)' and put the text in. Or
else
tell me how to do it myself.
Dammit, those AOP guys are masters of media hype. With epsilon work they
get their own special issue of CACM. We have actually SOLVED some of the
problems that they are still cracking their heads over. The hordes of AOP
groupies have a right to know this.
-- Peter Van Roy Département d'Ingénierie Informatique (Department of Computing Science and Engineering) Université catholique de Louvain B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, BelgiumEmail: pvr@info.ucl.ac.be Tel: (+32) (10) 47.83.74 Web: http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/people/cvvanroy.html Mozart: http://www.mozart-oz.org - Please send submissions to hackers@mozart-oz.org and administriva mail to hackers-request@mozart-oz.org. The Mozart Oz web site is at http://www.mozart-oz.org/.