Rép. : [s] Re: [aspectj-users] staticinitialization of interface

["Richard MERCILLE" <Richard.Mercille@xxxxxxxx>]

Je suis en vacance du 15.03 au 04.04. Merci

>>> "aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx" 03/27/05 19:13 >>>

Hi, Paulo.

> Follow-up question:  in general, does the type signature  MyInterface+
> map to that interface and all subinterfaces  *and*  all classes that
> implement that interface or any subinterface?  If so, shouldn't  the
> type signature  MyInterface  (without '+')  map to that inferface and
> all classes that implement that interface?

In my understanding <someStruncturalPointcut>(SomeType) matches SomeType
and
SomeType *only*. This applies to interfaces as well as classes.
SomeType+
makes all subtypes (being subinterfaces or subclasses, resp. classes
implementing SomeType) match.

A difference makes e.g. the call(...) pointcut, since it takes dynamic
dispatch and behavioural subtyping into account. So if you specify
call(*
Object.equals(Object)), this will also match calls to equals(Object) on
any
subtype of Object IIRC, since the method defined on the subtype is
essentially just a special implementation of the "contract" defined by
the
interface of the equals(Object) method in Object. Sanme counts for
execution(...). However I am not sure about this/target/args...

Hope that helps,

Eric


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


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

**********************************************************************