undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgmueckl6y ago0 comments

To me it sounds like he was introducing a hard dependency on AspectJ, which is as much a risk as any other dependency. I am guessing here, bit it is a scenario where a hissy fit from management has at least some justification.

0 comments

scarface746y ago

How is a dependency on AspectJ any more of a liability than the dozens of other external dependencies in your typical application?

gmuecklOP6y ago

It is just as much of a liability, a priori neither more nor less. It needs to be evaluated like any other potential new dependency.

Plus, AspectJ is something that you have to be careful with. It injects code at the start or end of methods that can do arbitraty things and the method source code doesn't indicate that this is happening. So it has a great potential for code obfuscation.

scarface746y ago

Sort of unrelated rant. Maybe it’s because I’m not as well versed in Java idioms as I am with C# idioms, but using code that implements AOP using AspectJ seems much more obtuse than what I’ve done in C# just looking at the examples.

In C#, with the various frameworks - including on the API level with ASP.Net - you can use attributes to decorate the classes/methods with your aspects and it’s pretty easy to see what it’s doing.

You get the runtime binding basically by just using dependency injection as you always do.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

scarface746y ago

How is a dependency on AspectJ any more of a liability than the dozens of other external dependencies in your typical application?

gmuecklOP6y ago

It is just as much of a liability, a priori neither more nor less. It needs to be evaluated like any other potential new dependency.

scarface746y ago

You get the runtime binding basically by just using dependency injection as you always do.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse