ajdt-dev http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ajdt-dev/maillist.html ajdt-dev en-us Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:20:58 GMT Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:20:58 GMT http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss MHonArc RSS 2.0 RCFile webmaster@eclipse.org (Webmaster) webmaster@eclipse.org (Webmaster) ajdt-dev http://www.eclipse.org/eclipse.org-common/themes/Phoenix/images/eclipse_home_header.jpg http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ajdt-dev/maillist.html [ajdt-dev] AJDT 2.0.0 released! http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ajdt-dev/msg01387.html Hello all,The AJDT team is pleased to announce the release of AJDT 2.0.0 for Eclipse 3.4 and Eclipse 3.5.  Here are the relevant update sites:http://download.eclipse.org/tools/ajdt/35/update http://download.eclipse.org/tools/ajdt/34/updateZip files can be ...
The AJDT team is pleased to announce the release of AJDT 2.0.0 for Eclipse 3.4 and Eclipse 3.5.  Here are the relevant update sites:

http://download.eclipse.org/tools/ajdt/35/update
http://download.eclipse.org/tools/ajdt/34/update

Zip files can be downloaded here:
http://eclipse.org/ajdt/downloads

There are plenty of exciting things in this release, including new refactoring and better ITD support.  This release includes AspectJ 1.6.5 and has over 50 bugs resolved (not including bugs resovled for AspectJ).  You can find out more on the New & Noteworthy page:
http://eclipse.org/ajdt/whatsnew200/

This release would not have been possible with out help from the community.  So, thank you for your bug reports, patches, discussions and being a warm and welcoming to newcomers.


sincerely,
the AJDT team
]]> Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:10:25 GMT http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ajdt-dev/msg01387.html andrew@xxxxxxx (Andrew Eisenberg) Re: [ajdt-dev] AJDT Release Review http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ajdt-dev/msg01386.html or even, (almost in celebration of the moon landings???), 40 years ago, according to the build date on the downloads page :D I suspect that the e34x has rather thrown the PHP on the downloads page Zip file Build Date Build Report AspectJA0;Version 2.0.0.e...
I'll have a look at that.

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Neale Upstone <neale@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Excellent news.



On 23/06/2009 20:56, Andrew Eisenberg wrote:
Thanks, Anne.  We will be releasing AJDT 2.0 tomorrow.
or even, (almost in celebration of the moon landings???), 40 years ago, according to the build date on the downloads page :D

I suspect that the e34x has rather thrown the PHP on the downloads page
Zip file Build Date Build Report AspectJ Version
2.0.0.e34x-20090622-2000 for Eclipse Wed, 31 Dec 1969 -- 90:62 (-0400) changes 1.6.5.20090618034232


_______________________________________________
ajdt-dev mailing list
ajdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ajdt-dev


]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:47:26 GMT http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ajdt-dev/msg01386.html andrew@xxxxxxx (Andrew Eisenberg) Re: [ajdt-dev] AJDT Release Review http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ajdt-dev/msg01385.html or even, (almost in celebration of the moon landings???), 40 years ago, according to the build date on the downloads page :D I suspect that the e34x has rather thrown the PHP on the downloads page Zip file Build Date Build Report AspectJsp;Version 2.0.0.e... Excellent news.


On 23/06/2009 20:56, Andrew Eisenberg wrote:
Thanks, Anne.  We will be releasing AJDT 2.0 tomorrow.
or even, (almost in celebration of the moon landings???), 40 years ago, according to the build date on the downloads page :D

I suspect that the e34x has rather thrown the PHP on the downloads page
Zip file Build Date Build Report AspectJ Version
2.0.0.e34x-20090622-2000 for Eclipse Wed, 31 Dec 1969 -- 90:62 (-0400) changes 1.6.5.20090618034232

]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:34:04 GMT http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ajdt-dev/msg01385.html neale@xxxxxxx (Neale Upstone) Re: [ajdt-dev] AJDT Release Review http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ajdt-dev/msg01384.html
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Anne Jacko <emo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello all,

Since there has not been a request from a member of the Eclipse community to hold this review on a conference call, there will be no Review Call tomorrow (June 24, 2009).

The EMO has declared this review to be successful based on the review docuware and on community feedback. Congratulations to the AJDT team on their successful review.

Please contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx with any questions. Thanks.

Anne Jacko
emo@xxxxxxxxxxx

_______________________________________________
ajdt-dev mailing list
ajdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ajdt-dev

]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:56:52 GMT http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ajdt-dev/msg01384.html andrew@xxxxxxx (Andrew Eisenberg) [ajdt-dev] AJDT Release Review http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ajdt-dev/msg01383.html Hello all, Since there has not been a request from a member of the Eclipse community to hold this review on a conference call, there will be no Review Call tomorrow (June 24, 2009). The EMO has declared this review to be successful based on the review docu... Hello all,
Since there has not been a request from a member of the Eclipse community to hold this review on a conference call, there will be no Review Call tomorrow (June 24, 2009).

The EMO has declared this review to be successful based on the review docuware and on community feedback. Congratulations to the AJDT team on their successful review.

Please contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx with any questions. Thanks.

Anne Jacko
emo@xxxxxxxxxxx


]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:25:16 GMT http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ajdt-dev/msg01383.html emo@xxxxxxx (Anne Jacko) [ajdt-dev] Fwd: [eclipse.org-committers] Eclipse Project Reviews http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ajdt-dev/msg01382.html For those interested and are members of the Eclipse foundation, you may want to participate in the AJDT Release review call on June 24. &#xA0;Details are below.---------- Forwarded message ----------From: Anne Jacko &lt;emo@xxxxxxxxxxx&gt; Date: Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at ...
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anne Jacko <emo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 6:13 AM
Subject: [eclipse.org-committers] Eclipse Project Reviews
To: eclipse.org-membership-at-large@xxxxxxxxxxx, eclipse.org-committers@xxxxxxxxxxx


Hello all,

Below is the schedule of upcoming project reviews. Review Calls take place only if an Eclipse member, using the project's Communication Channel (given below), requests that the call be held. Otherwise, the EMO will decide the outcome of the review based on the docuware and community feedback.

The request for the Review Call must be posted at least 24 hours before the scheduled review time. The EMO will post a message on the Communication Channel stating whether or not the Review Call will be held. The EMO will also post the results of the review on the Communication Channel. 

Project Reviews

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 RAP Incubator Creation Review (docuware) at 1500 UTC
Wed, 24 Jun 2009Pave Creation Review (docuware) at 1500 UTC
Wed, 24 Jun 2009Jetty Graduation/Release 7.0 Review (docuware,project log) at 1500 UTC
Wed, 24 Jun 2009Embedded Rich Client Platform (eRCP) 1.3 Release Review (docuware, project log) at1500 UTC
Wed, 24 Jun 2009AspectJ Development Tools (AJDT) Release 2.0 Review (docuware, project log) at1500 UTC
Wed, 24 Jun 2009Ajax Toolkit Framework (ATF) Continuation Review (docuware) at 1500 UTC

Reviews are held on a conference call for Eclipse Members. Members (and committers are members) are directed to the MyFoundation portal for the call-in information. If you do not have access to the portal, send email to EMO to request the call information.

Communication Channels

Embedded Rich Client Platform (eRCP): dsdp-ercp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Ajax Toolkit Framework (ATF): atf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
AspectJ Development Tools (AJDT): ajdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx


Anne Jacko


_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-committers mailing list
eclipse.org-committers@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-committers

IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal to the Eclipse Foundation.  To be permanently removed from this list, you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request removal.

]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:52:24 GMT http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ajdt-dev/msg01382.html andrew@xxxxxxx (Andrew Eisenberg) [ajdt-dev] AJDT 2.0.0 is getting very close... http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ajdt-dev/msg01381.html Hi all, The AJDT team has just finished creating the release candidates for AJDT 2.0.0 targeting Eclipse 3.4 and Eclipse 3.5. They are available from the dev update sites: http://download.eclipse.org/tools/ajdt/34/dev/update http://download.eclipse.org/too... Hi all, The AJDT team has just finished creating the release candidates for AJDT 2.0.0 targeting Eclipse 3.4 and Eclipse 3.5. They are available from the dev update sites: http://download.eclipse.org/tools/ajdt/34/dev/update http://download.eclipse.org/tools/ajdt/35/dev/update Yes, I did say 2.0.0 for *both* 3.4 and 3.5. Our new versioning scheme is this 2.0.0.34x-timestamp and 2.0.0.35x-timestamp. We believe that this is the most expressive and succinct way to communicate both the feature level of an AJDT version (eg- 2.0.0) and its eclipse compatibility (eg- 34x). Thanks for everyone's feedback on this issue. The N&N for the 2.0.0 release is here: http://eclipse.org/ajdt/whatsnew200/ Lots of new goodies are available. We plan to release e34x on June 18 (if we can schedule our release review before then) and e35x will be June 28 (shortly after the Galileo release). I encourage everyone to update to the RC and use it in anger (or joy) to find any bugs. thanks, the AJDT team ]]> Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:02:45 GMT http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ajdt-dev/msg01381.html andrew@xxxxxxx (Andrew Eisenberg) Re: [ajdt-dev] EnsureAJBuilder.ensureNoJavaBuilder(..) and APT http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ajdt-dev/msg01380.html Thanks for the patch. I'll take a look at it next week. So, my understanding is that you require the javaBuilder only to run APT, and so there is no need to generate the class files, other than what APT generates. And since APT will run before the ajBuilder, there should be no conflict between the two. This sounds quite reasonable to me, as long as you can deal with APT's limitations. --a On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Dawid Pytel <pytel.dawid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > >> I guess if the project is suitably >> configured, the java builder could be run in this way and then AspectJ >> used to build any resultant output. > > That's exactly what I do. To be more precise I wanted to overcome ITD's > limitations. > For instance you can't declare, as far as I know, that all types > annotated with @Clonable annotation (or any other type pattern) should > have method clone() returning the same type (that is method > public Class1 Class1.clone() {...} ). > Therefore I decided to generate using APT a separate aspect for each > annotated type. > >> I suppose it has limitations - a Java file can't refer to an aspect, >> since the java builder wouldn't be able to resolve the reference to an >> aj file. > > I haven't had to refer to aspect from generated files yet. Besides I > suppose the java builder is not very interested in a method's body when > it comes to an annotation processing. I noticed that any problems with > plain java code (like references to methods added by ITD that shouldn't > be recognised by Java compiler) are discarded by the AspectJ builder or > never raised by Java builder. As a result any problem markers that are > solved by the AspectJ builder aren't displayed. > >> It is probably worth raising an enhancement request to track >> doing this - perhaps mentioning a bit more about the configuration and >> any limitations you see with the approach, so we can decide what to >> do. > > The bug concerning AspectJ and APT cooperation was already raised - its > #169857. > > I raised a bug #278535 for EnsureAJBuilder.ensureNoJavaBuilder(..) > problem. I also attached to that bug a project that generates some files > using APT. > > Best regards > David > > _______________________________________________ > ajdt-dev mailing list > ajdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ajdt-dev > ]]> Sun, 31 May 2009 20:06:25 GMT http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ajdt-dev/msg01380.html andrew@xxxxxxx (Andrew Eisenberg) Re: [ajdt-dev] EnsureAJBuilder.ensureNoJavaBuilder(..) and APT http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ajdt-dev/msg01379.html Hi, That's exactly what I do. To be more precise I wanted to overcome ITD's limitations. For instance you can't declare, as far as I know, that all types annotated with @Clonable annotation (or any other type pattern) should have method clone() returning t... Hi, > I guess if the project is suitably > configured, the java builder could be run in this way and then AspectJ > used to build any resultant output. That's exactly what I do. To be more precise I wanted to overcome ITD's limitations. For instance you can't declare, as far as I know, that all types annotated with @Clonable annotation (or any other type pattern) should have method clone() returning the same type (that is method public Class1 Class1.clone() {...} ). Therefore I decided to generate using APT a separate aspect for each annotated type. > I suppose it has limitations - a Java file can't refer to an aspect, > since the java builder wouldn't be able to resolve the reference to an > aj file. I haven't had to refer to aspect from generated files yet. Besides I suppose the java builder is not very interested in a method's body when it comes to an annotation processing. I noticed that any problems with plain java code (like references to methods added by ITD that shouldn't be recognised by Java compiler) are discarded by the AspectJ builder or never raised by Java builder. As a result any problem markers that are solved by the AspectJ builder aren't displayed. > It is probably worth raising an enhancement request to track > doing this - perhaps mentioning a bit more about the configuration and > any limitations you see with the approach, so we can decide what to > do. The bug concerning AspectJ and APT cooperation was already raised - its #169857. I raised a bug #278535 for EnsureAJBuilder.ensureNoJavaBuilder(..) problem. I also attached to that bug a project that generates some files using APT. Best regards David ]]> Sun, 31 May 2009 01:35:53 GMT http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ajdt-dev/msg01379.html pytel.dawid@xxxxxxx (Dawid Pytel) Re: [ajdt-dev] EnsureAJBuilder.ensureNoJavaBuilder(..) and APT http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ajdt-dev/msg01378.html That is an interesting idea to enable use of JDT-APT in AspectJ projects. I've prototyped the AspectJ compiler supporting APT in the past, but it is a bit complicated so I never finished it to the point where I wanted to ship it. I guess if the project is ... That is an interesting idea to enable use of JDT-APT in AspectJ projects. I've prototyped the AspectJ compiler supporting APT in the past, but it is a bit complicated so I never finished it to the point where I wanted to ship it. I guess if the project is suitably configured, the java builder could be run in this way and then AspectJ used to build any resultant output. I suppose it has limitations - a Java file can't refer to an aspect, since the java builder wouldn't be able to resolve the reference to an aj file. It is probably worth raising an enhancement request to track doing this - perhaps mentioning a bit more about the configuration and any limitations you see with the approach, so we can decide what to do. cheers, Andy 2009/5/29 Dawid Pytel <pytel.dawid@xxxxxxxxx>: > Hi, > > I develope project that heavily relies on AspectJ and APT. To get it > working I use a workaround. I have both JavaBuilder and AJBuilder in my > project's .project file. > (http://www.eclipse.org/newsportal/article.php?id=1966&group=eclipse.technology.ajdt#1966). > > Just recently I noticed that my JUnit tests don't regenerate files using > APT mechanism. After debugging I found reason - from time to time > EnsureAJBuilder.ensureNoJavaBuilder(..) gets called and removes > JavaBuilder from project. > > I wonder if there is a reason to remove JavaBuilder from .project. I > imagine that the problem could be with generated .class files. Maybe in > this case it's worth ignoring java build command entry that has argument > org.eclipse.jdt.core.compiler.generateClassFiles set to disabled. This > would solve the problem because JDT-APT would call annotation processors > but no binaries would be generated. > > I use AJDT Version: 2.0.0.e34x-20090528-1600 > AspectJ version: 1.6.5.20090528125400 > > Best regards > David > > _______________________________________________ > ajdt-dev mailing list > ajdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ajdt-dev > ]]> Fri, 29 May 2009 15:21:51 GMT http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ajdt-dev/msg01378.html andrew.clement@xxxxxxx (Andy Clement)