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