Difference between revisions of ".NET AOP"
From Richard's Wiki
(→Surveys of .NET AOP Frameworks) |
(→Surveys of .NET AOP Frameworks) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
* [http://csharp-source.net/open-source/aspect-oriented-frameworks Open Source Aspect-Oriented Frameworks in C#] (CSharp-Source.net) | * [http://csharp-source.net/open-source/aspect-oriented-frameworks Open Source Aspect-Oriented Frameworks in C#] (CSharp-Source.net) | ||
* [http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cs/AOP_Frameworks_Rating.aspx Rating of Open Source AOP Frameworks in .Net] (CodeProject Aug 2008) | * [http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cs/AOP_Frameworks_Rating.aspx Rating of Open Source AOP Frameworks in .Net] (CodeProject Aug 2008) | ||
| − | * [http://www.neovolve.com/post/2009/04/08/Styles-of-AOP.aspx Styles of AOP] (Has a useful table of AOP immplementation methods) | + | * [http://www.neovolve.com/post/2009/04/08/Styles-of-AOP.aspx Styles of AOP] (Has a useful table of AOP immplementation methods, reproduced below:) |
| + | |||
| + | {| class="wikitable" border="1" | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | ! # Approach | ||
| + | ! Advantages | ||
| + | ! Disadvantages | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | 1 Remoting Proxies | ||
| + | | Easy to implement, because of the .Net framework support | ||
| + | | Somewhat heavy weight, Can only be used on interfaces or MarshalByRefObjec | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | 2 Deriving from ContextBoundObject | ||
| + | | Easiest to implement, Native support for call interception | ||
| + | | Very costly in terms of performance | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | 3 Compile-time subclassing ( Rhino Proxy ) | ||
| + | | Easiest to understand | ||
| + | | Interfaces or virtual methods only | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | 4 Runtime subclassing Castle Dynamic Proxy ) | ||
| + | | Easiest to understand, Very flexible | ||
| + | | Complex implementation (but already exists), Interfaces or virtual methods only | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | 5 Compile time IL-weaving ( Post Sharp / Cecil ) | ||
| + | | Very powerful, Good performance | ||
| + | | Very hard to implement | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | 6 Runtime IL-weaving, ( Post Sharp / Cecil ) | ||
| + | | Very powerful, Good performance | ||
| + | | Very hard to implement | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | 7 Hooking into the profiler API ( Type Mock ) | ||
| + | | Extremely powerful | ||
| + | | Performance?, Complex implementation (COM API, require separate runner, etc) | ||
| + | |} | ||
Revision as of 01:21, 22 July 2009
.NET Aspect Oriented Programming Frameworks
- PostSharp (compile-time aspect injection (good), but LGPL or commercial license (bad))
- Policy Injection Application Block (pseudo-AOP framework, runtime aspect injection, from Microsoft P&P group, getting old...)
- Spring.NET (Runtime aspect injection via proxies)
Surveys of .NET AOP Frameworks
- Open Source Aspect-Oriented Frameworks in C# (CSharp-Source.net)
- Rating of Open Source AOP Frameworks in .Net (CodeProject Aug 2008)
- Styles of AOP (Has a useful table of AOP immplementation methods, reproduced below:)
| # Approach | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Remoting Proxies | Easy to implement, because of the .Net framework support | Somewhat heavy weight, Can only be used on interfaces or MarshalByRefObjec |
| 2 Deriving from ContextBoundObject | Easiest to implement, Native support for call interception | Very costly in terms of performance |
| 3 Compile-time subclassing ( Rhino Proxy ) | Easiest to understand | Interfaces or virtual methods only |
| 4 Runtime subclassing Castle Dynamic Proxy ) | Easiest to understand, Very flexible | Complex implementation (but already exists), Interfaces or virtual methods only |
| 5 Compile time IL-weaving ( Post Sharp / Cecil ) | Very powerful, Good performance | Very hard to implement |
| 6 Runtime IL-weaving, ( Post Sharp / Cecil ) | Very powerful, Good performance | Very hard to implement |
| 7 Hooking into the profiler API ( Type Mock ) | Extremely powerful | Performance?, Complex implementation (COM API, require separate runner, etc) |
