Description Matthew Webster 2006-03-02 09:17:11 EST

The interface execution pointcut below matches whether or not the "+" (plus) is used (they are semantically equivalent):

public aspect TestAspect perthis(test(A)){
 
    // this does match at runtime with runtime test
    //pointcut test(A a): execution(public void A+.a()) && this(a);
            
    // this does not match at runtime with runtime test
    pointcut test(A a): execution(public void A.a()) && this(a);
            
    void around(A a): test(a) {
        System.err.println(thisJoinPoint);
        proceed(a);
    }
}

public  interface A {
 
            public  void a(); 
}

public class B implements A {
            
    public void a() {
        System.out.println("in B");
    }
            
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        new B().a();
    }
}

However when the same pointcut is used in a perthis() clause while the pointcut matches the associated advice is not executed.

When the code is decompiled the reason for the problem is clear. While the "bind()" call is made before the advice is invoked the class B does not implement the necessary AjcMightHaveAspect interface so the subsequent "hasAspect()" call fails.

public class B
    implements A
{

    public B()
    {
    }

    public void a()
    {
        JoinPoint joinpoint = Factory.makeJP(ajc$tjp_0, this, this);
        TestAspect.ajc$perObjectBind(this);
        if(TestAspect.hasAspect(this))
        {
            a_aroundBody1$advice(this, joinpoint, TestAspect.aspectOf(this), this, null, joinpoint);
            return;
        } else
        {
            a_aroundBody0(this, joinpoint);
            return;
        }
    }
...
}

This is a regression from AspectJ 1.2.1.