This does raise the question of whether
enclosing means lexically enclosing (in which case my request wouldn’t
make sense). Admittedly, if enclosing is dynamically enclosing, then the
enclosing jp for execution would normally be call. Then again, that would be
more useful too. I think this would also be consistent with the notion of
enclosing in, e.g., the if pointcut designator…
I think it would be more helpful to mean dynamically
enclosing, which would also be in the spirit of Matthew’s query about exposing
dynamic information about the enclosing join point…
From:
aspectj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:aspectj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ron Bodkin
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005
7:51 AM
To: 'AspectJ
developer discussions'
Subject: RE: [aspectj-dev]
thisEnclosingJoinPoint
There are certainly some good use cases
for it. I’d also like to see the enclosing join point (static part) for
adviceexecution be defined as the advised join point…
From:
aspectj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:aspectj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew Webster
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005
2:39 AM
To: AspectJ developer discussions
Subject: [aspectj-dev]
thisEnclosingJoinPoint
We have thisJoinPoint, thisJointPointStaticPart and
thisEnclosingJoinPointStaticPart but not the dynamic form thisEnclosingJoinPoint.
Is there a reason why? Is it lack of compelling use case or implementation
issues?
Thanks
Matthew
Webster
AOSD Project
Java Technology Centre, MP146
IBM Hursley
Park, Winchester, SO21 2JN,
England
Telephone: +44 196 2816139 (external) 246139 (internal)
Email: Matthew Webster/UK/IBM @ IBMGB, matthew_webster@xxxxxxxxxx
http://w3.hursley.ibm.com/~websterm/