Re: [aspectj-users] Language: support for modifiers in TypePatterns

[Adrian Colyer <adrian_colyer@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> I think using an attribute style
will be more incompatible, because 
> you can use these pseudo-attributes to pick out types that the 
> compiler doesn't control (e.g., in java..*). By contrast, AJ 
> developers are already used to the notion of having primitive 
> pointcut descriptors supplied, and I don't think isInterface() is
> hard to read. 
> 
> I'm curious why you're reluctant to add more primitive PCDs.

I'm not against adding more pcds per-se,
just conscious of the trade-off between adding lots of individually simple
pcds - and potentially ending up with a more complex (certainly larger)
overall language, vs adding fewer pcds / pattern forms that are slightly
more general and keeping the overall complexity down, but potentially making
individual cases more complex. I like Wes' suggestion of working through
a good set of examples, because I'm really not sure myself yet which way
to go on this one.

-- Adrian
Adrian_Colyer@xxxxxxxxxx

"Ron Bodkin" <rbodkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent by: aspectj-users-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx 17/12/2003 06:54 Please respond to aspectj-users

To:        aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx         cc:                 Subject:        Re: [aspectj-users] Language: support for modifiers in TypePatterns

>Like Ron, I find the isInterface() style easiest
to read right now.
>However, knowing that the attribute style will be coming to the pointcut
>language very soon once J2SE 1.5 is out, and being wary of pushing
too >many new elements into the pointcut language, I think we should
take a
>good hard look at the attribute style. If we can find a way to do this
>that will be compatible with the use of attribute-matching pointcut
>expressions in general then that has a strong appeal to me...

I think using an attribute style will be more incompatible, because you
can use these pseudo-attributes to pick out types that the compiler doesn't
control (e.g., in java..*). By contrast, AJ developers are already used
to the notion of having primitive pointcut descriptors supplied, and I
don't think isInterface() is hard to read. 

I'm curious why you're reluctant to add more primitive PCDs.

> Especially Jim's suggestion that the attributes could be defined in
> some package - can we take this to the point where there is nothing
> special about these particular attributes as compared to any others
> that we might wish to pick out in the future?
Again, I think these attributes would have to apply to code the compiler
doesn't affect.

>Whatever route we go, there still remains the ambiguity in some
> situations of whether the qualification refers to *this* or *target*.
Agreed...

Ron
_______________________________________________
aspectj-users mailing list
aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users