Re: AOP and pep 246

On 13 Nov., 15:17, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > AOP was a research that gone nowhere - at least not in its orginal > > AspectJ form ... > > I think it might be worth pointing out, though, that there is still > significant interest in AOP in the Java community, in the form or > interest in t

Re: AOP and pep 246

> AOP was a research that gone nowhere - at least not in its orginal > AspectJ form ... I think it might be worth pointing out, though, that there is still significant interest in AOP in the Java community, in the form or interest in the Spring Framework. See, for instance: http://www.onjava.com/

Re: AOP and pep 246

On Nov 3, 12:17 am, "Rustom Mody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My own feeling: Python is more AOP ready than java. So lighter-weight > techniques like Michele's decorator should go further. But > methodology not yet formulated. To clarify: my view is that lightweight techniques are enough and tha

Re: AOP and pep 246

I find these viewpoints interesting in their divergence. At the risk of being simplistic: Kay: AOP == AspectJ or thereabouts. A failure in itself and uninteresting to pythonistas Michele: AOP not very interesting though does good work himself in decorators, metaclasses and other such AOPish stuf

Re: AOP and pep 246

Carl Banks wrote: > > AOP is a programming paradigm in the same way indie is a genre of > film. I like your explanation! Heck, if it were more directly Python-related, I'd nominate this line for QOTW. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: AOP and pep 246

On Nov 2, 12:10 am, Paul Rubin wrote: > "Rustom Mody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On 11/1/07, Kay Schluehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > AOP was a research that gone nowhere - at least not in its orginal > > > AspectJ form: declaring aspect code that targets busine

Re: AOP and pep 246

On Nov 1, 4:46 pm, Kay Schluehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1 Nov., 16:18, "Rustom Mody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I am interested in AOP in python. From here one naturally (or > > google-ly) reaches peak. > > But peak seems to be discontinued. > > Whereas pep-246 on adaptors seems to b

Re: AOP and pep 246

On Nov 2, 5:00 am, "Rustom Mody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/1/07, Kay Schluehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > AOP was a research that gone nowhere - at least not in its orginal AspectJ > > form: > > declaring aspect code that targets business code, weaving the aspect code > > into the

Re: AOP and pep 246

On Nov 2, 5:00 am, "Rustom Mody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Seehttp://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3119 > > Thanks Michele. But there are a couple of questions on this: > > a. Does one have to use python 3000 for this? I expect ABC's to be backported to Python 2.6, but it is probably possible t

Re: AOP and pep 246

"Rustom Mody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 11/1/07, Kay Schluehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > AOP was a research that gone nowhere - at least not in its orginal > > AspectJ form: declaring aspect code that targets business code... > My own guess is that AOP via higher order functions and meta

Re: AOP and pep 246

On 11/1/07, Kay Schluehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > AOP was a research that gone nowhere - at least not in its orginal AspectJ > form: > declaring aspect code that targets business code, weaving the aspect code > into the > business app using a code generator. There was much excitement about

Re: AOP and pep 246

On Nov 1, 4:18 pm, "Rustom Mody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am interested in AOP in python. From here one naturally (or > google-ly) reaches peak. > But peak seems to be discontinued. > Whereas pep-246 on adaptors seems to be rejected in favor of something else. > > What?? > > Can someone plea

Re: AOP and pep 246

On 1 Nov., 16:18, "Rustom Mody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am interested in AOP in python. From here one naturally (or > google-ly) reaches peak. > But peak seems to be discontinued. > Whereas pep-246 on adaptors seems to be rejected in favor of something else. > > What?? > > Can someone pleas

AOP and pep 246

I am interested in AOP in python. From here one naturally (or google-ly) reaches peak. But peak seems to be discontinued. Whereas pep-246 on adaptors seems to be rejected in favor of something else. What?? Can someone please throw some light on whats the current state of the art? -- http://mail