Yeah, I get it now. The term describes a specific methodology, where I understood it to mean a general concept.
Regardless, I still stand by my point. The way forward for Flex is in "providing" implementation details, rather than the more traditional approach of "sealing" them. Spark is a step in the right direction. All the best, - Aaron ________________________________________ From: Michael A. Labriola [labri...@digitalprimates.net] Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 12:29 PM To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: RE: Why Spark? (was Re: s:Spacer (was Re: Missing Spark components)) >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. :) I would actually think about it the other way. AOP can be used to facilitate DI.
