RE: [aspectj-users] if and loop pointcuts

["Gregor Kiczales" <gregor@xxxxxxxxx>]

William,

I missed your message in the long reply I just sent.

I think what you are asking for is very much like the enclosingexecution
pointcut described in my message.  As I said, this idea didn't get into
1.0 (or 1.1 of course). The idea needs work, but there might be something
there.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: aspectj-users-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:aspectj-users-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Louth, William
> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 12:08 AM
> To: aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [aspectj-users] if and loop pointcuts
> 
> 
> Hi Gregory,
> 
> Is is possible to define a point in terms of its requests on other
> objects. The lock example is good here as I believe it would be
> illustrate the need to be able to define a pointcut in terms 
> of the what
> pointcuts are activated inside of its execution. So I would 
> like to have
> an around() advice declared on a pointcut definition that is based on
> whether an another poincut is weaved into its execution. 
> 
> Is this possible with the current language constructs? Have I missed
> sometime in the documentation that details how to do this?
> 
> 1. define pointcut for lock accesses (creation, acquire....)
> 2. define pointcut for all methods whch have pointcut (1) weaved into
> them
> 3. create advice based on around(0 for pointcut (2)
> 
> Thoughts? Of course I would look at simply refactoring th code in the
> first place. The more I use aspects they more I am drawn to fix other
> peoples bad designs and code via the less cool and boring source code.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> William Louth
> JDBInsight Product Architect
> www.jinspired.com
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregor Kiczales [mailto:gregor@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 7:16 PM
> To: aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [aspectj-users] if and loop pointcuts
> 
> 
> 
> > No, I want to have an aspect that takes a lock at the
> > first access to a 
> > variable (this is easy to detect) and releases the lock after 
> > the last access to 
> > that variable (and here comes my problem).
> 
> Before thinking about this more, I want to ask why you don't 
> want to do
> the simpler thing of just releasing the lock when the enclosing method
> terminates? It seems to me that you'll have a lot of overhead for
> counting gets/sets and figuring out which path you are on. While I can
> see that minimizing the locking window is good, I wonder if you'll be
> paying so much for it that it won't be worth it.
> 
> I see some other issues, but I wanted to ask this question 
> first, before
> trying to think about those other issues.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> aspectj-users mailing list
> aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
> _______________________________________________
> aspectj-users mailing list
> aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>