by adamjaph - 2004-09-07 11:30
by denka - 2004-09-08 09:43
by wgauvin - 2004-09-07 13:05
by mbrowncpwr - 2004-09-07 10:39
by adamjaph - 2004-09-07 08:48
by paulhorn - 2004-09-17 06:37
by d_bleyl - 2004-09-13 05:01
by parmenion0 - 2004-09-06 00:29
by grlea - 2004-09-05 19:54
by grlea - 2004-09-05 19:53
by adamjaph - 2004-09-07 08:58
This is true. I believe there is a strong alignment between the two. A couple of reasons why AOP might be better in certain situations:
I am sure there are other differences, but that is all I could think of.
by cajo - 2004-09-04 15:56
by cajo - 2004-09-14 22:19
by adamjaph - 2004-09-15 10:48
As I said in another post, the main difference is that AOP is transparent to the code it is decorating and can decorate arbitrary method calls in a variety of ways. The GOF Decorator requires either that some interceptor be directly called or that the code that is decorated implements some common interface (Or any number of other methods, but the point is that it requires framework code.)
This still has absolutely nothing to do with AOP. There are a number of methods to deal with distributed code in Java, some of which use asynchronous calls and some of which don't. Regardless of which of these techniques you use you can use AOP with them, or not. The concepts, and their common implementations, are completely orthogonal.
by cajo - 2004-09-15 13:26
by damnhandy - 2004-09-14 12:27
by adamjaph - 2004-09-07 09:03
by smbell - 2004-09-03 22:23
by csterwa - 2004-09-03 11:36
by brianm - 2004-09-03 10:55
Your use of this web site or any of its content or software indicates your agreement to be bound by these Terms of Participation.
Copyright © 2014, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Oracle and Java are registered trademarks of Oracle and/or its affiliates. Other names may be trademarks of their respective owners.