Allan Erskine wrote:
>
> Just a quickie (more later)
>
> I still really like the phrase "separation of concerns" (not out of date
> yet I hope).
>
> I think it should be used more in conjunction with the phrase
> "reintegration of concerns"
>
> I'd love to see Cocoon become the perfect instrument for separating and
> then reintegrating concerns, and I think this RT is a good step towards
> this.
>
> What I'd really like to see would be _comprehensible_ reintegration of
> concerns (check the aspectJ/HyperJ syntax for this - v bad; eg looking
> at a piece of code, you're not told whether some aspect/concern area
> applies to it).
>
> Only one logical conclusion AFAIcan see...C3 is going to be a literate
> programming system. Written in C2!
A few quick comments:
1) there is no such thing as C3! (yet, but we don't need it since C2 is
still a great architecture for what I see)
2) I don't like the term 'reintegration of concern', but I like the
concept you outlined (yes, AspectJ appears very elegant at first, but it
starts becoming a nightmare if the project grows... aspects are
separated, but the number of contracts increases too much and debugging
contract changes might be impossible!)
I would use the terms 'cooperation of concerns' to indicate how a
framework allows you to have your separated concerns work together
again.
--
Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be
able to give birth to a dancing star.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
