[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [aspectj-users] call from advice body
|
Hi Doug,
As Matthew says, the problem is no longer present in the latest
version of ajc.
Regarding the feature requested in your postscript: abc provides such
"private pointcut variables". abc is an optimising compiler for the
full AspectJ 1.2 language, designed to be easily extensible - and one
of the example extensions is the one you request. A pre-release
is publicly available from http://aspectbench.org.
Feedback on abc from readers of this list is most welcome!
Best wishes,
-Oege
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Doug Orleans wrote:
> I have the following aspect:
>
> aspect Fact {
> static int fact(int n) {
> throw new RuntimeException("Message not understood: fact(" + n + ")");
> }
>
> pointcut factBaseCase(int n):
> factCall(n) &&
> if(n == 0);
> int around(): factBaseCase(int) { return 1; }
>
> pointcut factCall(int n):
> call(int fact(int)) &&
> args(n);
> int around(int n): factCall(n) { return n * fact(n-1); }
>
> public static void main(String[] args) {
> System.out.println(fact(5));
> }
> }
>
> It throws the exception: Message not understood: fact(4)
> But if I change factCall to use execution instead of call, it works
> fine (printing 120).
>
> Why doesn't the call to fact(4) get advised? Is there some rule that
> advice can't apply to calls from advice bodies?
>
> --dougo@xxxxxxxxx
>
> P.S. It would be nice to rewrite factBaseCase as follows:
>
> pointcut factBaseCase():
> factCall(int n) &&
> if(n == 0);
>
> since the pointcut doesn't actually need to expose any context. Is
> this a reasonable feature request, or is it not really feasible?
>
> _______________________________________________
> aspectj-users mailing list
> aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>
