Re: [aspectj-users] Reducing code overhead

[Adrian Colyer <adrian_colyer@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Try replacing the around advice with
before - there will be less code generated and it doesn't look like you
actually need around advice in this instance. By avoiding non-static use
of thisJoinPoint (the call to getArgs()) you'll get additional savings
too.

So,

>     void around() : setters() || setters1()
>     {
>         Object arg = thisJoinPoint.getArgs()[0];
>         if(arg != null)
>           savedAttributes_.put(thisJoinPoint.getSignature().getName(),
arg);
>         proceed();
>     }

becomes:

before(Object arg) : (setters() || setters1()) &&
args(arg) {
  if (arg != null)
    savedAttributes_.put(thisJoinPointStaticPart.getSignature().getName(),arg);
}

and

>     void around() : special_setters()
|| special_setters1()
>     {
>         Object arg = thisJoinPoint.getArgs()[0];
>         if(arg != null)
>            savedAttributes_.remove(thisJoinPoint.getSignature().getName());
>         proceed();
>     }

becomes:

before(Object
arg) : (special_setters() || special_setters1()) && args(arg) {
  if (arg != null)
    savedAttributes_.remove(thisJoinPointStaticPart.getSignature().getName(),arg);
}

I'm curious to know how much of a difference
this makes in your system...

-- Adrian
Adrian_Colyer@xxxxxxxxxx

aspectj-users-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 23/04/2004
12:05:28:

> Hi,
> We decided to use AspectJ in our product TICL. I wrote an aspect and
> everything is working, but there's a
> quite big overhead and the resulting jar has grow with around 400K.
So I'd
> like to ask for some advices how
> to cut down this overhead. Let me fisrt descrive what is our aspect
supposed
> to do. We have a bunch of
> classes (around 90) representing custom JSP tags, which should be
modified
> in a way to provide EL support.
> We have written such classes too, but because  the code is very
similar, we
> decided to use an aspect to get
> rid of those EL classes. So what is our aspect supposed to do: it
should
> intercept all doStartTag(), doEndTag()
> methods, and all setters. The string setters should be handled differently
> that all other setters. I've applided every
> possible restriction taht i'm aware of, but I'm not an AspectJ expert,
so
> i'd like to ask you for some help.
> The code is given below:
> 
> aspect ElAspect perthis(tags())
> {
>     pointcut tags(): (this(TICLTagSupport+) || this(TICLBodyTagSupport+))
>      && within(com.kobrix.ticl.tags.*) &&
> !within(com.kobrix.ticl.tags.el.*);
> 
>     //calls that must pass without our modifications
>     pointcut spec(): withincode(void ElAspect.restoreAttributes(Object))
||
>     withincode(void ElAspect.saveAndEvaluateAttributes(Object));
> 
>     pointcut setters(): execution(public void TICLTagSupport+.set*(String))
> && target(TICLTagSupport+)&& !cflow(spec());
>     pointcut setters1(): execution(public void
> TICLBodyTagSupport+.set*(String)) && target(TICLBodyTagSupport+)
&&
> !cflow(spec());
> 
>     void around() : setters() || setters1()
>     {
>         Object arg = thisJoinPoint.getArgs()[0];
>         if(arg != null)
>           savedAttributes_.put(thisJoinPoint.getSignature().getName(),
arg);
>         proceed();
>     }
> 
>     pointcut special_setters():  call(public void TICLTagSupport+.set*(*))
>     && !call(public void TICLTagSupport+.set*(String))
&&
> target(TICLTagSupport+);
>     pointcut special_setters1():  call(public void
TICLTagSupport+.set*(*))
>     && !call(public void TICLBodyTagSupport+.set*(String))
&&
> target(TICLBodyTagSupport+);
> 
> 
>     void around() : special_setters() || special_setters1()
>     {
>         Object arg = thisJoinPoint.getArgs()[0];
>         if(arg != null)
>            savedAttributes_.remove(thisJoinPoint.getSignature().getName());
>         proceed();
>     }
> 
>     pointcut doStartTag(Object tag): execution(public int
> TICLTagSupport+.doStartTag())
>     && target(tag) && !cflowbelow(execution(public
int
> TICLTagSupport+.doStartTag()));
>     pointcut doStartTag1(Object tag):  execution(public
int
> TICLBodyTagSupport+.doStartTag()) &&
>     target(tag) && !cflowbelow(execution(public
int
> TICLBodyTagSupport+.doStartTag()));
> 
>     before(Object tag) : doStartTag(tag) || doStartTag1(tag)
>     {
>         saveAndEvaluateAttributes(tag);
>     }
> 
>     pointcut doEndTag(TICLTagSupport tag):  execution(public
int
> TICLTagSupport+.doEndTag())
>     && this(tag) && !cflowbelow(execution(public
int
> TICLTagSupport+.doEndTag()));
>     pointcut doEndTag1(TICLBodyTagSupport tag):  execution(public
int
> TICLBodyTagSupport+.doEndTag())
>     && this(tag) && !cflowbelow(execution(public
int
> TICLBodyTagSupport+.doEndTag()));
> 
>     after(Object tag) : doEndTag(tag) || doEndTag1(tag)
>     {
>         restoreAttributes(tag);
>     }
> 
>     //setXXX/value
>     private final Map savedAttributes_ = new HashMap();
> 
>     private void saveAndEvaluateAttributes(Object tag)
>     {
>         //some code here
>     }
> 
>     private void restoreAttributes(Object tag)
>     {
>        //some code here
>     }
> }
> 
> All the tags are subclasses of TICLBodyTagSupport or TICLTagSupport.
> 
> Thanks in advance, Konstantin
> _______________________________________________
> aspectj-users mailing list
> aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users