2 ms·

http://conceptoriented.org/savinov/publicat/arxiv_1501_00720.pdf http://conceptoriented.org/savinov/publicat/arxiv_1501_00720... Just skimmed the 'Cross-Cuttin

http://conceptoriented.org/savinov/publicat/arxiv_1501_00720.pdf http://conceptoriented.org/savinov/publicat/arxiv_1501_00720... Just skimmed the 'Cross-Cutting Concerns' in your paper above. Isn't AOP far more general than what you propose there? Please correct any misunderstanding but per the parent based approach you describe -- "cross-cutting concerns are modularized in parent incoming methods and this functionality is injected in child methods" -- you would need to duplicate a CCC e.g. logging in each distinct 'parent'.

asavinov 10y ago
> Isn't AOP far more general than what you propose there? Yes, definitely AOP provides much more freedom in injecting behavior to other parts of the code - it is its main goal while COP has different goals. > you would need to duplicate a CCC e.g. logging in each distinct 'parent' No, because in COP, "Parents are Shared Parts of Objects" [1], that is, a parent may have many children. Inheritance in COP is inclusion. If a parent implements a method then it will be reused by all its children. [1] http://bibliography.selflanguage.org/_static/parents-shared-parts.pdf http://bibliography.selflanguage.org/_static/parents-shared-...