Re: [aspectj-dev] Fwd: static context/pointcuts (was [aspectj-users] Obj

[Eric Tanter <etanter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Ramnivas for replying.

I understand your point about the simplicity of the "this() binds the  
this object", vs. having to say "this() binds the this object, or null  
if the jp occurs in a static context".

But, arguably, this would still be simpler than having to explain why  
one needs to write his pointcuts twice (if context is exposed), when a  
single set of pointcuts does the job when no context is used.

-- Éric


On Dec 16, 2008, at 20:40 , Ramnivas Laddad wrote:

> The problem with binding this() to null or the class object is that it
> breaks the simplicity of saying "this() binds the this object". Since
> with static methods, this doesn't even exist, the current behavior can
> be explained (agreed to or not :-)). Had Java made a different choice
> (especially binding the class to this in a static method), I am sure
> AspectJ would have the choice you suggest.
>
> -Ramnivas
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Eric Tanter <etanter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>  
> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > My post (below) on aspectj-users has not triggered any reaction.
> > I'm wondering whether on aspectj-dev it would.
> >
> > Apologies if the question has been asked and answered before -- in  
> > that
> > case, please point me to the appropriate place.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > -- Éric
> >
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > > From: Eric Tanter <etanter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Date: December 12, 2008 3:07:30  GMT-03:00
> > > To: aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: [aspectj-users] Object Graph using aspectj
> > > Reply-To: aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > On Dec 12, 2008, at 14:58 , Andy Clement wrote:
> > > > If you are using this()/target() to bind context, be aware that  
> > > > they will
> > > > not match in a static context (this() wont match when the join  
> > > > point occurs
> > > > within a static method for example, and there is no target() if a  
> > > > call is to
> > > > a static method).  In these cases you need two sets of pointcuts,  
> > > > one set to
> > > > handle the static case and one to handle the non-static case.
> > >
> > > Just wondering:
> > >
> > > Why not following Java's way of dealing with the fact that classes  
> > > are not
> > > true objects? ie. one uses null for the this object in a  
> > > reflective static
> > > method invocation -- so this()/target() could expose null, no?
> > >
> > > That would avoid this kind of ad-hoc non-uniformity. It is quite  
> > > odd that
> > > just by exposing context, one needs to double his pointcut  
> > > definitions.
> > >
> > > (of course a nicer alternative would be to really pass the class  
> > > object as
> > > being the target/this, but that may be too much to ask for ;)).
> > >
> > > -- Éric_______________________________________________
> > > aspectj-users mailing list
> > > aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > aspectj-dev mailing list
> > aspectj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-dev
> _______________________________________________
> aspectj-dev mailing list
> aspectj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-dev