Home

JDeveloperAOP

This project's goal is to provide integrated support for Aspect Orientated Programming in Oracle's JDeveloper IDE. Where possible we hope to make use of, and reuse code from, projects that have solved similar problems for other IDEs. The initial focus of the project is to integrate ADJT, the AspectJ design time environment, into JDeveloper.

It would be interesting to see whether projects such as this will help get AOP accepted by industry.

By Ehud Lamm at 2004-07-17 15:59 | Software Engineering | other blogs | 7208 reads

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Eclipse AJDT Release

Here.

By Mark Evans at Tue, 2004-07-20 06:47 | login or register to post comments

Meta discussion

I wonder why this item got so little attention.

Is it beacuse LtU-ers don't work in industry, or at least don't use JDeveloper?

Is it beacuse AOP is of little interest to programmers in industry?

Is it that AOP is of little interest around here period?

Any other likely explanation?

By Ehud Lamm at Sun, 2004-07-25 14:34 | login or register to post comments

It's about IDEs

I read "integration with IDE" and skip it.
If it had said "revolutionary new IDE feature" I might have checked it out.

By Sjoerd Visscher at Sun, 2004-07-25 14:43 | login or register to post comments

Maybe

When was the last time you heard of a "revolutionary new IDE feature"? It has been awhile...

From past experience I think IDE discussions usually get a lot of attention (perhaps more then they deserve).

By Ehud Lamm at Sun, 2004-07-25 14:46 | login or register to post comments

For me

Is it beacuse LtU-ers don't work in industry, or at least don't use JDeveloper?

I don't program for a living these days, but when I did I used Eclipse (and JBuilder before that). I used JDeveloper once but I didn't like it.

Is it beacuse AOP is of little interest to programmers in industry?

AFAICS people around here (i.e. Brazil) aren't interested in AOP.

Is it that AOP is of little interest around here period?

I think many around here don't see what is so great about AOP in the first place. I'm still trying to see if there's some form of AOP that doesn't create a tight coupling between aspects and target code.

Any other likely explanation?

Perhaps people got too involved with the weekly type system holy war :-)

By Daniel Yokomizo at Mon, 2004-07-26 01:43 | login or register to post comments

AOP

AFAICS people around here (i.e. Brazil) aren't interested in AOP.

I think this is the general feeling. Which makes me wonder why AOP in general (not this item here on LtU, wink) is getting so much attention...

By Ehud Lamm at Mon, 2004-07-26 18:40 | login or register to post comments

Two things

Which makes me wonder why AOP in general (not this item here on LtU, wink) is getting so much attention...

I think it boils down to two things:

  • It has tireless promoters with clout, such as Booch and Kiczales
  • There always has to be a Next Big Thing for people to obsess over ;-)
By Marc Hamann at Mon, 2004-07-26 18:53 | login or register to post comments

Booch?

I wasn't aware that he is a "tireless promoter" of AOP. Can you show where? I am aware of a general interest in AOP, it would be interesting to know if it's more than that.

By Ehud Lamm at Mon, 2004-07-26 19:35 | login or register to post comments

UML amigos seem keen

I wasn't aware that he is a "tireless promoter" of AOP

One of the first places I heard about AOP was from this article.

Some other examples of several I've seen over the last couple years.

Seems his UML/Rational buddy, Ivar Jacobson, is in on it too.

(Benign signup may be required)

By Marc Hamann at Tue, 2004-07-27 02:46 | login or register to post comments

AOP

Count me among the people who feel that AOP is the wrong solution for the problem set that it attempts to address. It strikes me as mostly another way to slice and dice source code, a kind of "programmable preprocessor," if you will. If you're going to do that, I'd rather see a somewhat more formal treatment of, e.g. tree grammar transformations, and a means of employing them intra-linguistically, rather than bolting them onto an existing language such as C++ or Java.

It also occurs to me that we hear most about AOP in the context of Java, which leads me to wonder whether AOP-in-Java isn't merely attempting to address some of Java's shortcomings, and other languages might not have those shortcomings to begin with. I'm thinking to some extent of Peter van Roy's pointed observations about how Oz actually solves some problems that are being "investigated" in the context of AOP for other languages. At some point, it's time to move on from the Frankensteinian bolts-in-the-neck of underexpressive languages and choose better tools.

By Paul Snively at Mon, 2004-07-26 19:04 | login or register to post comments