[aspectj-dev] Fw: Re: AspectJ in Aurora

["Ron Bodkin" <rbodkin@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I could have sworn I re-sent this email from the proper email address after it first bounced, but apparently I didn't. My apologies for the delay!

Ron Bodkin
Chief Technology Officer
New Aspects of Security
m: (415) 509-2895

> ------------Original Message-------------
> From: "Ron Bodkin" <rbodkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: aspectj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: "Eugene Zhuravlev" <jeka@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Dmitry Lomov" <dsl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, Jul-8-2003 7:34 AM
> Subject: Fw: Re: AspectJ in Aurora
> 
> Eugene and Dmitri from Intellij are interested in using the AspectJ 1.1 weaver as the back-end for the IntelliJ IDE. I am forwarding a thread of questions they sent me about this to the aspectj-dev list for discussion.
> 
> I think it's worth more discussion what they have in mind in terms of an "open API."
> 
> Likewise, support for generics (and metadata) are interesting topics. The AspectJ project needs to deliver these in time for Java 1.5 (next summer so they say). If you were using a compiler that supports them with a version of the weaver exists that does not, I believe the result will be rather unsatisfactory (it certainly wouldn't allow the desired extension of AspectJ to support generics or metadata).
> 
> Ron
> 
> Ron Bodkin
> Chief Technology Officer
> New Aspects of Security
> m: (415) 509-2895
> 
> > ------------Original Message-------------
> > From: "Eugene Zhuravlev" <jeka@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: "Ron Bodkin" <rbodkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: "Dmitry Lomov" <dsl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Tue, Jul-8-2003 5:33 AM
> > Subject: Re: AspectJ in Aurora
> > 
> > Sure!
> > We would like to have a "technical contact" in the AspectJ team to solve questions that might arise, like these:
> > 
> > 1. So far we haven't found a way to invoke the weaver on the classes that are not stored in a jar archive. Why this is not possible?
> > 
> > 2. It would be interesting to discuss how the intertype declarations can be handled on bytecode level: there are cases when
> > 'ordinary' classes use members introduced by an aspect. Looks like we cannot compile such classes with javac.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Eugene Zhuravlev
> > JetBrains, Inc, http://www.intellij.com
> > "Develop with pleasure!"
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ron Bodkin" <rbodkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: "Eugene Zhuravlev" <jeka@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: "Dmitry Lomov" <dsl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: 08 July, 2003 02:37
> > Subject: Re: AspectJ in Aurora
> > 
> > 
> > > Eugene and Dmitry,
> > >
> > > I'm glad to hear you're interested in building on the ajc 1.1 weaver. It is indeed possible to use the weaver without using the
> > compiler.
> > >
> > > I would like to forward your question to the AspectJ developers list, since it raises a number of questions that I can't answer on
> > behalf of all the AspectJ committers. Is it ok if I do so?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Ron
> > >
> > > Ron Bodkin
> > > Chief Technology Officer
> > > New Aspects of Security
> > > m: (415) 509-2895
> > >
> > > > ------------Original Message-------------
> > > > From: "Eugene Zhuravlev" <jeka@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > To: "Ron Bodkin" <rbodkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Cc: "Dmitry Lomov" <dsl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Date: Mon, Jul-7-2003 7:53 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: AspectJ in Aurora
> > > >
> > > > Hi Ron,
> > > >
> > > > I've got several questions concerning new ajc:
> > > > 1. is it possible to use the ajc from 1.1 release as a weaver only?
> > > > 2  is there any open API in order to integrate it in our make process?
> > > > That way IDEA will be fully aspectj-compatible.
> > > > Using ajc as a weaver is an essential requirement - it allows to use arbitrary compiler: specific version of javac, jikes or
> > even
> > > > generics-enabled compiler.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Eugene Zhuravlev
> > > > JetBrains, Inc, http://www.intellij.com
> > > > "Develop with pleasure!"
> > > >
> > > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
>