+1 Sounds like a perfect use for AspectJ.
Cheers,
Nick
> -Original Message-
> From: Vincent Massol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 5:52 AM
> To: 'Cactus Developers List'
> Subject: RE: Cactus and AspectJ
>
>
>
>
&g
> -Original Message-
> From: Nicholas Lesiecki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 06 February 2003 01:14
> To: Cactus Developers List
> Subject: RE: Cactus and AspectJ
>
> In response to Vincent:
> <<<
> 1/ as a development tool for the cactus framew
rent than the original code. I'm not 100% sure if this is still
true, or whether it's actually the fault of AspectJ.
>>>
Yes, it's AspectJ's fault. I agree that we should probably run only one
source/class munging tool on the cactus source. However, I'd say Clov
Hi Chris,
It is indeed controversial! :-)
To make it short, yes, I would like to add more pointcuts. Ok, a bit
more of history:
* Some time ago, I had introduced another use of AOP in Cactus. It was a
configuration checker that was checking if the user configuration of
Cactus was ok and it was r
I mean to respond to this, I just haven't had the time yet. I will probably
do so sometime this week.
Cheers,
Nick
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Lenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 9:08 AM
> To: Cactus Developers List
> Subject: Cactus and AspectJ
