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/
