| RE: [aspectj-users] A new radical use of Aspects: Fixing errors in Sun's JDK with AspectJ |
|
AspectJ can already be used to make methods behave as if they were synchronized. You just need to add a synchronized block instead of the synchronized modifier. The code would look something like this (the non-static version would use the this() pcd to get the appropriate object for the lock):
pointcut needsStaticLock(): execution(BreakIterator BreakIterator.getBreakInstance(..));
Object around(): needsStaticLock() { synchronized(thisJoinPointStaticPart.getSignature().getDeclaringType()) { return proceed(); } }
AspectJ-1.1 doesn’t have support for adding checked exceptions or for marking fields as volatile. We’ve had many discussions about a ‘declare throws’ clause for adding checked exceptions, but this hasn’t led to any conclusions. This is a very invasive change to existing code that will be likely to break existing clients of those interfaces. As far as I remember this is the first time I’ve seen this proposal for adding volatile to existing fields, and would be worth considering for the 1.2 language design.
-Jim
For this it would be nice if AspectJ would allow me to declare intertype type-modfications to existing types like below (modification in large letters): // Fixing a JDK bug in a future version of AspectJ: aspect MyAspect { private static SYNCHRONIZED java.text.BreakIterator java.text.getBreakInstance(Locale where, int type, String rulesName, String dictionaryNamed). } Examples of other bug-fix modifications, would be to redeclare stuff as volatile, to add declared exception (such as adding RMI exceptions to non-RMI aware code) etc.: The above solution would be cool, but unfortunately AspectJ does not support it. Maybe good for next version of AspectJ ? Comments ? Suggestions ? Cheers, Morten Ch, |