[aosd-discuss] can you have interception w/o aop?

[Pascal Costanza]

On 6 Apr 2006, at 14:52, Roger Johansson wrote:

>>> It seems to me that two characterizations are currently  
>>> typically  ..
>
> Ok, now we're talking.
>
> but is those two things really addressing the same thing?
>
> isnt the goal based addressing the "essence" of AOP, while the  
> technical addresses the requirements for an _AOP Framework/Engine/ 
> Language_  ??
>
> surely I must be able to make a mini use-case specific AOP engine/ 
> compiler that pointcuts via some static code instead of a DSL ,  
> just because I might know that thats all I need in this specific  
> usecase.
> and it would still be AOP , wouldnt it?
>
> so AOP as a concept can exist w/o DSL pointcut languages etc, while  
> a competent AOP Framework/Language cannot
>
> or?

You are now talking about the difference between a programming style  
and explicit support for such a programming style. Of course, you can  
program in a style while using a language that doesn't explicitly  
support that style, for example, by doing object-oriented programming  
in plain C. Same for AOP, and for any other programming paradigm for  
that matter. (Most programming languages are Turing equivalent,  
right? ;)


Pascal

-- 
Pascal Costanza, mailto:pc at p-cos.net, http://p-cos.net
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Programming Technology Lab
Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium