Bug 39457

Summary:	support protected inter-type declarations
Product:	[Tools] AspectJ	Reporter:	Ron Bodkin <rbodkin+LISTS>
Component:	Compiler	Assignee:	Adrian Colyer <adrian.colyer>
Status:	REOPENED ---	QA Contact:
Severity:	enhancement
Priority:	P5	CC:	matthew
Version:	unspecified
Target Milestone:	---
Hardware:	PC
OS:	Windows XP
Whiteboard:

Description Ron Bodkin

2003-06-29 21:47:24 EDT

I have an abstract aspect (e.g., for testing) and would like to expose inter-
type declared state to concrete implementations but *not* to the world. Today 
I have to either open it too wide (with a public) and then use an aspect to 
close it down (ugly) or restrict the concrete aspects to be in the same 
package with a default (package-friendly) scope.

Protected inter-type declaration should have the obvious semantics: accessible 
to anything in the same package or to any concrete aspect that extends the 
abstract one.

Comment 1 Jim Hugunin

2003-07-02 17:40:47 EDT

Marking as enhancement request.  Planning for 1.2 will determine how these 
enhancements will be prioritized.

Comment 2 Adrian Colyer

2005-08-17 13:54:39 EDT

Still a perfectly valid enhancement request, but we have no immediate plans to support this feature in the 
short term so moving to "LATER" status where we can pick it up again at some future point.

Comment 3 Eclipse Webmaster

2009-08-30 02:50:30 EDT

LATER/REMIND bugs are being automatically reopened as P5 because the LATER and REMIND resolutions are deprecated.

Comment 4 Matthew Adams

2009-10-02 10:49:33 EDT

I'd like this to be added soon.  When I introduce an implementation of an interface that needs fields to do its job, the fields are public, which breaks encapsulation.  I want to introduce an interface implementation that doesn't affect the public interface that the class exposed prior to introduction, except for the addition of the newly introduced interface's methods.

Comment 5 Matthew Adams

2009-10-02 10:53:07 EDT

BTW, this is a related bug that I entered as a result of a mailing list discussion:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=288282

Comment 6 Matthew Adams

2013-04-02 16:22:08 EDT

[bump]