[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: AW: [aspectj-users] [newbie] General help needed here.....
|
Vincenz,
You are right that in some contexts there is a runtime test for this(Type) && execution(* method(..)). But we were talking within a context of using this pointcut instead of execution(* Type.method(..)), i.e., where the method was defined for the type instead.
So a more precise statement is that this(Type) && execution(* method(..)) has no runtime check where method is defined on Type.
In the case you defined, you don't have any runtime checks on Derived. And if you wrote test to be just
pointcut test(): this(FooIF) && execution(void foo());
you wouldn't have any check on Simple. You would need one in the odd case if Simple were to have a method with the signature void foo() but still did not implement FooIf.
Ron
Ron Bodkin
Chief Technology Officer
New Aspects of Software
o: (415) 824-4690
m: (415) 509-2895
> ------------Original Message------------
> From: "Vincenz Braun" <vb@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Mon, Jul-19-2004 4:56 AM
> Subject: AW: [aspectj-users] [newbie] General help needed here.....
>
> Hello,
>
> I am also a little bit confused about this statement:
>
> > By the way, this(Type) && execution(...) has *no* dynamic test
>
> Take these test classes:
>
> public interface FooIF {
> public void foo();
> }
>
> pubic class Simple {
> public void anotherFoo() {
> System.err.println("Another Foo");
> }
> }
>
> public class Derived extends Simple implements FooIF {
> public void foo() {
> System.err.println("Foo");
> }
> }
>
> public aspect ExecutionAspect {
>
> pointcut test(): execution(* *(..)) && this(FooIF);
>
> before (): test() {
> System.err.println("Before");
> }
> }
>
> This advises Simple.anotherFoo with runtime test (according to Outline
> view
> in eclipse). So there is a runtime test with this(Type) &&
> execution(...).
> So what do you mean with this statement? When Simple also implements
> FooIF
> there are no longer advices that need runtime tests. So the compiler
> makes
> some optimizations (as described in the paper you provided).
>
> In my opinion the documentation lacks some good examples regarding this
>
> topic. Take these two misunderstandings.
>
> - It is allowed to use a + in this(Type+) which makes no difference.
> But
> one could think this(Type) could mean exactly this type and
> this(Type+)
> instanceof this Type.
> - Take execution(* Type.*(..)) For me it was a surprise that derived
> classes from type that override methods from Type get advices too.
>
> A little test which picks up the usual misunderstandings at the end
> of the programming guide would be great.
>
> Vincenz
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: aspectj-users-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:aspectj-users-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Ron Bodkin
> Gesendet: Montag, 19. Juli 2004 08:36
> An: aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Betreff: RE: [aspectj-users] [newbie] General help needed here.....
>
> Hi Otavio,
>
> That's right, if you need to bind to the currently executing object it
> does
> have a performance impact. But if you are using execution(* method(..))
> &&
> this(Type) only to filter the objects matching, it does not have a
> performance impact when compared to using execution(* Type.method(..))
>
> Ron
>
> > ------------Original Message------------
> > From: Otávio Augusto Lazzarini Lemos <oall@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Date: Sat, Jul-17-2004 9:51 AM
> > Subject: RE: [aspectj-users] [newbie] General help needed here.....
> >
> > About the last example you gave, you are not actually using the
> join
> > point´s
> > currently executing object (this(ExecBytecode)) in your advice. Try
> to
> > use it
> > in the before advice and you will have some differences at the
> bytecode
> > level.
> > I guess that at least the object will be pushed on to the stack to be
>
> > used by
> > the before advice. I don´t know the performance implications of that,
>
> > but the
> > bytecode will not be the same.
> >
> > Otávio
> >
> > .---------------------- -- --- ---- -----
> > |Otávio Augusto Lazzarini Lemos
> > |M. Sc. candidate
> > |Labes - Software Engineering Laboratory
> > |USP - University of São Paulo
> > |São Carlos, SP - Brasil
> > |oall@xxxxxxxxxxx - otaviolemos@xxxxxxxxxx
> > -------------------------------------------- --- - -
> >
> > Citando Ron Bodkin <rbodkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> > > Yes Wes, it is true that using the declaring type in the signature
> is
> > useful
> > > and can be appropriate for those who have some experience with
> > AspectJ.
> > > However, for new users it's helpful to get in the mindset of using
> > this to
> > > specify types instead of doing it in the method signature, instead
> of
> > trying
> > > to remember that using declaring types with call is problematic and
>
> > using
> > > them with execution is ok (remember that Jerry started off using
> call
> > with a
> > > static type in the signature!) And it is also a good rule because
> > it's
> > > binding the currently executing object in your pointcut is commonly
>
> > done.
> > >
> > > By the way, this(Type) && execution(...) has *no* dynamic test (+),
>
> > and with
> > > the AspectJ 1.2 compiler optimizations should be compiled about
> > equally
> > > quickly (e.g., slide 96 from Andy Clement's data at
> > >
> >
> http://newaspects.com/presentations/Enterprise%20AOP%20AOSD%202004.ppt
> which
> > > shows some related improvements, although not the performance of
> > this(..) &&
> > > execution(..)).
> > >
> > > It is true that it's not statically resolvable for declare
> > warning/error
> > > (although I'd like to see the compiler restriction eased to allow
> use
> > > pointcuts for any special cases where no dynamic test would be
> > required to
> > > resolve a pointcut; maybe some day). And it also isn't useful for
> > statics
> > > (clearly). But these are specialized scenarios, not the general
> rule.
> > >
> > > Re: configuring AspectJ with Struts, the aTrack project is a
> working
> > example
> > > that uses Struts with AspectJ.
> > >
> > > Ron
> > >
> > > (+) See section 4.1.2 in "Advice Weaving in AspectJ"
> > > http://www.hugunin.net/papers/aosd-2004-cameraReady.pdf. Also I
> > compiled two
> > > versions of an aspect with AspectJ 1.2 and found identical
> bytecode:
> > >
> > > public aspect ExecBytecode {
> > > void foo() {}
> > > before() : this(ExecBytecode) && execution(* foo()) {}
> > > }
> > >
> > > Then from "javap -c ExecBytecode"
> > >
> > > foo();
> > > Code:
> > > 0: invokestatic #49; //Method aspectOf:()LExecBytecode;
> > > 3: invokevirtual #51; //Method
> > ajc$before$ExecBytecode$1$eb4dac00:()V
> > > 6: return
> > >
> > > public void ajc$before$ExecBytecode$1$eb4dac00();
> > > Code:
> > > 0: return
> > >
> > > public aspect ExecBytecode {
> > > void foo() {}
> > > before() : execution(* ExecBytecode.foo()) {}
> > > }
> > >
> > > Produces:
> > > void foo();
> > > Code:
> > > 0: invokestatic #49; //Method aspectOf:()LExecBytecode;
> > > 3: invokevirtual #51; //Method
> > ajc$before$ExecBytecode$1$b5db75e4:()V
> > > 6: return
> > >
> > > public void ajc$before$ExecBytecode$1$b5db75e4();
> > > Code:
> > > 0: return
> > >
> > > Ron Bodkin
> > > Chief Technology Officer
> > > New Aspects of Software
> > > o: (415) 824-4690
> > > m: (415) 509-2895
> > >
> > > > ------------Original Message------------
> > > > From: "Wes Isberg" <wes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > To: aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Date: Fri, Jul-16-2004 11:06 PM
> > > > Subject: RE: [aspectj-users] [newbie] General help needed
> here.....
> > > >
> > > > Hi Ron (, Jerry) -
> > > >
> > > > re:
> > > > > As a general rule, you probably don't want to use the form of
> > > > signature
> > > > > you have in that pointcut (which matches based on static types
> > > > instead
> > > > > of runtime instances).
> > > >
> > > > I've never heard this rule and I believe it is not correct;
> > > > The original form
> > > >
> > > > execution(ReturnType DeclaringType.methodName(..))
> > > >
> > > > is better than
> > > >
> > > > execution(ReturnType methodName(..)) && this(DeclaringType)
> > > >
> > > > *because* it can be resolved staticly and requires no dynamic
> test
> > > > (faster compile, faster implementation, and better IDE support).
> > > >
> > > > You might be confusing this situation with the suggestion for
> > > > the call pointcut not to use the declaring type in the call.
> > > > This suggestion is because the signature of a call join point
> > > > refers to the type of the reference (at the call site), not the
> > > > type of the referent class (at run time). So when people
> > > > write
> > > >
> > > > call(ReturnType DeclaringType.methodName(..))
> > > >
> > > > they usually mean
> > > >
> > > > call(ReturnType methodName(..)) && target(DeclaringType)
> > > >
> > > > (hence the suggestion).
> > > >
> > > > Wes
> > > >
> > > > P.S. - If someone does figure out how to configure AspectJ
> > > > with Struts, etc, it would be great to contribute back a
> > > > description to the mailing list or a bug, for inclusion in
> > > > the sample code repository...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > ------------Original Message------------
> > > > > From: "Ron Bodkin" <rbodkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > To: aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Date: Fri, Jul-16-2004 4:09 PM
> > > > > Subject: RE: [aspectj-users] [newbie] General help needed
> > here.....
> > > > >
> > > > > Jerry,
> > > > >
> > > > > A couple of things to try:
> > > > > 1) Make sure that you are opening the affected file with the
> > AspectJ
> > > > > editor and not the Java editor. You should go into window |
> > > > preferences |
> > > > > file associations and make sure that AspectJ is set the the
> > default
> > > > for
> > > > > .java files
> > > > > 2) Try adding this line, to see if the pointcut is matching:
> > > > >
> > > > > declare warning: actionCall() : "in action execution";
> > > > >
> > > > > As a general rule, you probably don't want to use the form of
> > > > signature
> > > > > you have in that pointcut (which matches based on static types
> > > > instead
> > > > > of runtime instances). It should work for executions, but a
> > better
> > > > > version is:
> > > > >
> > > > > pointcut actionExecute() : execution(public ActionForward
> > > > > execute(ActionMapping, ActionForm,
> > > > > HttpServletRequest, HttpServletResponse))) &&
> this(Logon_Action);
> > > > >
> > > > > Ron
> > > > >
> > > > > p.s. there's an already defined, debugged version of a pointcut
>
> > for
> > > > > struts action execution in the aTrack project: see
> > > > > ajee.component.StrutsPointcuts. aTrack is at
> > > > https://atrack.dev.java.net/
> > > > >
> > > > > public pointcut actionExecute(Action action, ActionMapping
> > > > mapping,
> > > > > ActionForm form,
> > > > > HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse
> response)
> > :
> > > > > execution(ActionForward Action.execute(ActionMapping,
> > > > > ActionForm,
> > > > > HttpServletRequest, HttpServletResponse)) &&
> > this(action)
> > > >
> > > > > &&
> > > > > args(mapping, form, request, response);
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ron Bodkin
> > > > > Chief Technology Officer
> > > > > New Aspects of Software
> > > > > o: (415) 824-4690
> > > > > m: (415) 509-2895
> > > > >
> > > > > > ------------Original Message------------
> > > > > > From: "Jerry Jalenak" <Jerry.Jalenak@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > To: "'aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx'" <aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > Date: Fri, Jul-16-2004 1:07 PM
> > > > > > Subject: RE: [aspectj-users] [newbie] General help needed
> > here.....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Another possibility that just occurred to me....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since Logon_Action extends Action, do I need to 'expose' the
> > > > > > org.apache.struts.action.Action class to the aspect?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jerry Jalenak
> > > > > > Development Manager, Web Publishing
> > > > > > LabOne, Inc.
> > > > > > 10101 Renner Blvd.
> > > > > > Lenexa, KS 66219
> > > > > > (913) 577-1496
> > > > > >
> > > > > > jerry.jalenak@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Ramnivas Laddad [mailto:ramnivas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 2:29 PM
> > > > > > > To: aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [aspectj-users] [newbie] General help needed
> > > > here.....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Jerry,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Otávio's suggestion of using execution() PCD is the right
> > one.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is okay to use any number of aspects crosscutting a
> class.
> >
> > > > > > > Just a guess: Do you have every referred type in the
> pointcut
> >
> > > > > > > definition (in your case ActionMapping, ActionForm,
> > > > > > > HttpServletRequest, HttpServletResponse) appropriately
> > imported.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Ramnivas
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ===
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ramnivas Laddad,
> > > > > > > Author, AspectJ in Action
> > > > > > > http://ramnivas.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jerry Jalenak wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Otavio,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Thanks for the reply. Change the PCD from call to
> execution
> >
> > > > > > > didn't seem to
> > > > > > > >change anything. However, I starting to think I have
> > > > > > > something else wrong.
> > > > > > > >In the AspectJ Visualizer perspective, I am only seeing
> > > > > > > where one aspect has
> > > > > > > >been applied (I have two). Is it not possible to have
> more
> > > > > > > than one aspect
> > > > > > > >class?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Thanks....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Jerry Jalenak
> > > > > > > >Development Manager, Web Publishing
> > > > > > > >LabOne, Inc.
> > > > > > > >10101 Renner Blvd.
> > > > > > > >Lenexa, KS 66219
> > > > > > > >(913) 577-1496
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >jerry.jalenak@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>-----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > >>From: Otávio Augusto Lazzarini Lemos
> > [mailto:oall@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > > > > >>Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 1:31 PM
> > > > > > > >>To: aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > >>Subject: Re: [aspectj-users] [newbie] General help needed
>
> > > > > here.....
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>You should use an execution PCD. In your example the
> calls
> > to
> > > > > > > >>Logon_action.execute(ActionMapping, ActionForm,
> > > > > HttpServletRequest,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>HttpServletResponse) are the intercepted join points,
> and
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>not the actual
> > > > > > > >>execution of the method (try to look at the places where
> > you
> > > > > > > >>call the method).
> > > > > > > >>Tell me if it works with the execution instead of the
> call
> > PCD.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>Otávio
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>Citando Jerry Jalenak <Jerry.Jalenak@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>First, thanks to Rod, Adrian, and Ramnivas for their
> help
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>the other day. I
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>think I'm starting to get the hang of this....
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>That being said, I'm stuck as to why the following
> doesn't
> >
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>work. I've just
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>upgraded to the AJDT 1.1.11 plug-in, if it matters.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>Here's the aspect :
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> public aspect MemberSolutions_BaseActionAspect
> > > > > > > >>> {
> > > > > > > >>> // ~ Pointcut definitions
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> pointcut actionCall() :
> > > > > > > >>> (call(public ActionForward
> > > > > > > >>>Logon_Action.execute(ActionMapping, ActionForm,
> > > > > > HttpServletRequest,
> > > > > > > >>>HttpServletResponse)));
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> // ~ Advice definitions
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> before() : actionCall()
> > > > > > > >>> {
> > > > > > > >>> System.out.println("here i am");
> > > > > > > >>> }
> > > > > > > >>> }
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>and the class I'm trying to weave it into :
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> public class Logon_Action extends Action
> > > > > > > >>> {
> > > > > > > >>> public ActionForward execute(ActionMapping
> > > > _actionMapping,
> > > > > > > >>> ActionForm _actionForm, HttpServletRequest
> > > > > _request,
> > > > > > > >>> HttpServletResponse _response)
> > > > > > > >>> {
> > > > > > > >>> Logon_ActionForm form = (Logon_ActionForm)
> > > > _actionForm;
> > > > > > > >>> return null;
> > > > > > > >>> }
> > > > > > > >>> }
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>Everything compiles OK (no errors, anyway), but when I
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>check the class I
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>don't see any indication that the aspect is being
> applied.
> >
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>I expect to see
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>an indicator on the first statement of the class....
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>I'm probably being dense on this, and it's something
> > really
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>stupid, but I
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>can't seem to figure it out. Any help?
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>Thanks guys!
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>Jerry Jalenak
> > > > > > > >>>Development Manager, Web Publishing
> > > > > > > >>>LabOne, Inc.
> > > > > > > >>>10101 Renner Blvd.
> > > > > > > >>>Lenexa, KS 66219
> > > > > > > >>>(913) 577-1496
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>jerry.jalenak@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>This transmission (and any information attached to it)
> may
> >
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>be confidential
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>and
> > > > > > > >>>is intended solely for the use of the individual or
> entity
> >
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>to which it is
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>person responsible
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>for
> > > > > > > >>>delivering the transmission to the intended recipient,
> be
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>advised that you
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>have received this transmission in error and that any
> use,
> >
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>dissemination,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>forwarding, printing, or copying of this information is
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>strictly prohibited.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>If you have received this transmission in error, please
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>immediately notify
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>LabOne at the following email address:
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>securityincidentreporting@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>_______________________________________________
> > > > > > > >>>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
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >This transmission (and any information attached to it) may
>
> > > > > > > be confidential and is intended solely for the use of the
> > > > > > > individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are
> not
> >
> > > > > > > the intended recipient or the person responsible for
> > > > > > > delivering the transmission to the intended recipient, be
> > > > > > > advised that you have received this transmission in error
> and
> >
> > > > > > > that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or
> copying
> >
> > > > > > > of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have
> > > > > > > received this transmission in error, please immediately
> > > > > > > notify LabOne at the following email address:
> > > > > > > securityincidentreporting@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > > > > >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
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This transmission (and any information attached to it) may be
>
> > > > > > confidential and is intended solely for the use of the
> > individual
> > > > or
> > > > > entity to
> > > > > > which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient
> or
> > the
> > > >
> > > > > > person responsible for delivering the transmission to the
> > intended
> > > > > > recipient, be advised that you have received this
> transmission
> > in
> > > > > error and
> > > > > > that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying
>
> > of
> > > > this
> > > > >
> > > > > > information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
>
> > > > > transmission
> > > > > > in error, please immediately notify LabOne at the following
> > email
> > > > > > address: securityincidentreporting@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -----------------------------------------------------------.__
> > Otávio Augusto Lazzarini Lemos |
> > oall@xxxxxxxxxxx - otaviolemos@xxxxxxxxxx |
> > ------------------------------------------------------------- |
> > Insituto de Ciências Matemáticas e de Computação - ICMC/USP |
> > --------------------------------------------- -------- ---- ==
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aspectj-users mailing list
> aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>
>
