[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [aspectj-dev] The semantics of abstract aspects : proposed change in AspectJ 5
- From: Alexandru Popescu <the.mindstorm.mailinglist@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:26:05 +0200
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0+ (Windows/20050712)
#: Eric Bodden changed the world a bit at a time by saying on 9/13/2005 5:53 PM :#
What you wrote reminds me of a proposal I have seen earlier, which is static
pointcuts (and advice).
I see the connection as follows:
In classes, static methods can access static members - regardless of the
fact if the class is abstract or not. So on an abstract class A, you can
call some "public static A.foo()".
I think the same should be true for aspects: It should be possible to
declare static pointcuts (and advice?). Then one could easily argue that
"declare <whatever>" has static scope and can access anything which is
static. Of course, static pointcuts could have no access to this/target/args
(or static advice to thisjoinpoint."NonStaticPart").
Hope this helps,
Maybe my understanding is very limitted here, but I cannot see what a "static pointcut" would mean?
IMO just by saying that have no access to this/target/args doesn't make a pointcut static. Moreover,
this/target/args don't come into realization (and don't need to be realized) at the declaration moment.
About Adrian proposal it makes a lot of sense to me at least from the point of view of generics.
But, maybe somebody has good examples where the immediate realization of an abstract aspect would
make lots of sense too ;-).
my less than .02 euroc,