Re: when to use component-based design vs. stayign with traditional OOP
- From: Casey Hawthorne <caseyhHAMMER_TIME@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 10:36:23 -0700
Sorry, I've not followed the complete discussion.
I saw a presentation by Gregor Kiczales on Aspect-Oriented
programming.
-------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect-oriented_programming
Aspect-oriented programming (AOP) is a programming paradigm that
increases modularity by allowing the separation of cross-cutting
concerns, forming a basis for aspect-oriented software development.
Cross-cutting concerns: Even though most classes in an OO model will
perform a single, specific function, they often share common,
secondary requirements with other classes. For example, we may want to
add logging to classes within the data-access layer and also to
classes in the UI layer whenever a thread enters or exits a method.
Even though the primary functionality of each class is very different,
the code needed to perform the secondary functionality is often
identical.
-------------------------------------------
AOP helps with logging and security which are archetypal cross-cutting
concerns.
AOP'ers are trying to find uses for AOP outside of these areas.
Kiczales argues that OOP suffers from a limitation called the tyranny
of the dominant decomposition.
So, I'd reccomend component based design if the tyranny of the
dominant decomposition is getting to be too challenging.
--
Regards,
Casey
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: modularity... (was: Re: Looking for real world examples to explain the difference between procedural (structured?) programming and OOP)
- Next by Date: Re: modularity... (was: Re: Looking for real world examples to explain the difference between procedural (structured?) programming and OOP)
- Previous by thread: Re: when to use component-based design vs. stayign with traditional OOP
- Next by thread: Advertisement for Google Group: 2D Game Developers Central
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading