RE: [aspectj-users] Compatibility?

[Lesiecki Nicholas <ndlesiecki@xxxxxxxxx>]

I just submitted the following update to this bug:
(https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=52394)
<<
I just discovered that I was actually running the compiler shipped with the
1.1.6 (development) AJDT release. I am a bit embarrassed. (I hadn’t
realized that the development AJDT came with a development compiler). Based
on Jim’s compatibility stance, I am pursuing this bug with BEA/JRockit and
hope that they will either prove that the bytecode is illegal or fix their
bug. I’ll leave this case open until this bug is fixed by one party or
another (unless that’s inconvenient).
>>

This means (as far as I know) AspectJ 1.1.1 (as distinct from
AJDT-packaged-DEV 1.1.6) *does* work with JRockit. (Apologies for earlier
statement to the contrary.)

Jim Bethancourt:
Thanks for the pointer to Jonas, I'll pursue it if it seems helpful.

Jim Hugunin:
Thanks for the clear statement on compatibility. This does seem to BEA's
bug. I asked in part because BEA asked me what AspectJ's compatibility
posture was, and I wanted an official answer.

Wes (or other maintainers of documentation):
An edited verion of Jim's answer seems like a good candidate for inclusion
in the FAQ.

Cheers everyone,
Nick

 --- Jim Bethancourt <jimbub2002@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi fellas,
> I noticed on the AOSD conference website that Jonas
> Bonér, who is giving a presentation on AspectWerkz, is
> a developer on the JRockit JVM for BEA, so maybe he
> could provide some insight and some help.  After a
> little bit of hutning, I found an email address he
> uses:  jboner@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> Don't know if this will help much, but it's worth a
> shot. 
> 
> Yours truly,
> Jim
> 
> --- Jim Hugunin <lists@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi Nick,
> > 
> > AspectJ should always generate legal Java bytecode
> > that can run on any
> > correctly implemented JVM.  If you can't run AspectJ
> > generated bytecode then
> > it is likely the result of a bug in your JVM.  Any
> > time AspectJ can be shown
> > to generate illegal bytecode that is a high-priority
> > bug and will usually be
> > handled by the core team.  I spent this morning
> > fixing one such bug dealing
> > with an interaction between around advice and Java's
> > complicated rules for
> > protected access:
> > https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=51929.
> > 
> > The harder question is what to do about bugs in
> > popular JVMs.  These are not
> > bugs in the implementation of AspectJ; however, they
> > can cause problems for
> > AspectJ's users.  Your bug report appears to clearly
> > show this as a problem
> > with the JRockit VM and therefore a bug that it is
> > BEA's job to fix.
> > However, when resources are available we do try to
> > fix these bugs on the
> > AspectJ side.
> > 
> > I do all of my testing and development work on SUN's
> > JVMs and will develop
> > workarounds to bugs in those VMs if needed (the
> > infamous Miranda methods are
> > one example where we've done this in the past). 
> > Several other core AspectJ
> > developers work primarily on IBM's JVMs and will
> > test and develop
> > work-arounds for bugs found in those VMs.
> > 
> > We don't currently have any developers who work with
> > JRockit.  We would love
> > to accept patches and/or new developers who are
> > focused on JRockit and can
> > improve both testing and work-around any bugs in
> > that platform.  I'm also
> > open to contract work to address these kinds of
> > specific low-level
> > challenges (http://hugunin.net/consulting.html) but
> > I'm personally not going
> > to spend my free time dealing with the bugs of yet
> > another JVM.
> > 
> > -Jim
> > 
> > 
> > Lesiecki Nicholas wrote:
> > > After submitting the following bug today re:
> > AspectJ's compatibility with
> > > the JRockit JVM (hint: it isn't)
> > > 
> > >
> > https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=52394
> > > 
> > > I was wondering what sort of compatibilty posture
> > AspectJ is adopting.
> > > Obviously obscure bugs on AS400 JVMs are not the
> > highest priority.
> > > However,
> > > does AspectJ say: "you should be able to run this
> > bytecode anywhere and
> > > incompatibilities are likely the result of the
> > JVM" or does it say: "we've
> > > tested it on Sun, otherwise you're on your own."
> > (The preceeding
> > > statements
> > > are exagerrated of course.)
> > > 
> > > Or to put a finer point on it: who should fix this
> > bug, BEA or AspectJ?
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > aspectj-users mailing list
> > aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
> _______________________________________________
> aspectj-users mailing list
> aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users