From: Jonathan Turkanis (turkanis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-02-01 11:55:55
Martin de Lasa wrote:
> Jonathan,
> I never officially proposed the library; I just requested comments.
> Although there seemed to be quite a bit of interest, I became very busy
> and didn't have time to work on it.
>
> However, I'm working on it again now -- as of last week -- and hope to
> request comments soon and then to propose it for inclusion.
>
>
> That's great. Out of curiosity are you shooting to have a working draft
> ready for some particular time?
I'm thinking maybe April 1. Wait ... maybe I'd better make that April 2.
> I don't know a lot about AOP; the support for AOP in the interfaces
> library was based on another article by Chris and wasn't very well
> developed. I think I want to include pretty comprehensive support, or
> none at all, and I haven't decided which yet. Sorry I can't be more
> helpful right now.
>
>
> It funny, though I have been annoyed for years by the design issues that
> AOP attempts to address, I only became aware of AOP (as a formal
> technique) recently. So, it looks like we are in the same boat !!
>
> Have you found any good papers/books/videos that you feel talk about AOP
> at the depth of level for which you want to provide support? As with any
> techniques I am sure the 80/20 rule applies to AOP (i.e. 20% of features
> will deliver 80% of the benefit). Though I have never been part of the
> formal boost lib proposal process, I wonder if getting a solid/minimal
> subset of AOP features into a boost lib might do as a first cut to
> proposing the lib.
Based on the AOP literature I've read, my feeling is that a direct
"port" of an AOP framework from some other language that does not use a
specialized pre-processor would not satisfy AOP people and would not fit
C++ very well. My plan is to formulate a model that is designed
specifically for the capabilities of C++ and that can provide solutions
to (some of) the main problems that motivate AOP. I expect the notions
of advice and pointcuts, for example, to be quite different from
existing frameworks.
I have a bunch of ideas but I haven't worked them out yet to the point
where I want to share them.
> Thanks again. I look forward to what you come up with!
Thanks!
> Martin
-- Jonathan Turkanis CodeRage http://www.coderage.com