Haha, yeah maybe you're right. I've always taken AOP as a loosely defined term (like OOP), to mean the "composition of objects with cross-cutting concerns," where DI would be a design pattern in which to achieve AOP. I didn't realize the term was specific to the methodology. I always use DI to compose my Spark components anyways (ala skinning), so I guess it's a moot point for me. :)
Cheers! - Aaron -----Original Message----- From: Roland Zwaga [mailto:rol...@stackandheap.com] Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 9:46 AM To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Why Spark? (was Re: s:Spacer (was Re: Missing Spark components)) > > > One of the re-occurring discussions on this list has been the desire > > to > break down components into smaller parts. > > > > The spark architecture goes some way to achieving this. Take > > scrolling, > if you want it you wrap you group on a Scroller > > and off you go. Same for layouts. In this way spark is far more > > flexible > and superior to mx along with its skinning model. > > > > Spark is about writing smaller parts that can be put together to > > make a > whole, instead of each component having all the > > functionality for every scenario baked in. > > > > Tink > > I believe this paradigm is referred to as Aspect Oriented Programming > (AOP), and IMHO, should be the way forward for Flex. > Hmmm, I think the right term would be composition-based design. In most cases dependency injection would be the pattern to use to configure the compositions. Sorry for being a smart-ass by the way... :) Roland
