Re: [aspectj-users] binary weaving and class dependency transitive closu

[Adam Welch <adam.welch@xxxxxxxx>]

Thanks to both posters, Adrian and Alexandre.  I'll be trying to apply
this helpful new information soon.

,Adam Welch

On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 04:17, Adrian Colyer wrote:
> Let me give an example that might help clarify. Suppose the weaver
> encounters a pointcut
> 
> pointcut foo() : execution(* SomeInterface+.*(..));
> 
> that is associated with a piece of advice. The weaver is weaving an
> application class, MyApplicationClass. Does the pointcut match the
> execution of methods defined in this class or not? The only way to
> tell is to look at the direct supertypes - if SomeInterface is in the
> set then we do match, otherwise we have to chase up the hierarchy
> until we either hit Object in every branch, or we find a positive
> match. To do this matching, the weaver will need to "find" all the
> types in the hierarchy.
> 
> Consider the similar looking pointcut 
> 
> pointcut bar() : execution(* SomeClass.*(..));
> 
> also associated with a piece of advice. To determine whether or note
> this pointcut matches we only need access to SomeClass, and no other
> types will be pulled in.
> 
> On 29/07/05, Alexandre Vasseur <avasseur@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Adam
> > 
> > The point around that is tied to the compilation phase. When you do
> > binary weaving with ajc/iajc (that is post compile some jars to weave
> > in some aspects from another jar f.e.) we need to resolve the
> > pointcuts and see if we have a match.
> > 
> > In some case (depends on the pointcut as stated in the old post snip)
> > this means that we need to know (in binary form) all the super class
> > and interfaces that are parents of the class beeing weaved.
> > This situation does not happen at all at deployment time but a weave
> > time. The answer to the question " In effect, most (all?) concrete
> > classes would need to be
> > deployed.  Question is - is this true?" is thus NO.
> > 
> > This situation is one of the use case for load time weaving, where
> > weaving happens (somehow) at "deployment" time. In that case we
> > usually can resolve the types since as the JVM loads the classes, you
> > should not have ClassNotFound and such exception from your own
> > application since the environment in which you deploy does have all
> > the required class in the hierarchy of this loaded class.
> > 
> > I hope this clarify a bit.
> > Alex
> > 
> > 
> > On 7/28/05, Adam Welch <adam.welch@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Is this in the FAQ or docs somewhere?  The radio silence is deafening.
> > >
> > > ,Adam
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 12:00, Adam Welch wrote:
> > > > I am a new user, so please forgive any mis-phrasings.  I am trying to
> > > > use ajc to weave some aspects using -aspectpath and -inpath.  I have a
> > > > conceptual question.  From googling, I saw this posted.
> > > >
> > > > http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/aspectj-dev/msg00999.html
> > > >
> > > > >From which I snipped...
> > > >
> > > >         It is possible to use "within(my.class)",
> > > >         "within(my.package..*)" or
> > > >         "!within(exclude.pakage)" to scope a binary weave. However this technique
> > > >         does not work if a class has a hierarchy dependency e.g. superclass on a
> > > >         type that is not on the classpath You get a "can't find type ..." error. It
> > > >         is not uncommon for applications to contain classes that cannot be resolved
> > > >         due to external dependencies that were available during compile but not
> > > >         during execution e.g. secure socket factories on AXIS (these can be
> > > >         excluded as they have softer dependencies). AspectJ cannot binary weave
> > > >         some of these applications. The question is:
> > > >         1. Does the compiler need to resolve the class just to exclude it or is
> > > >         this a bug?
> > > >
> > > > My question relates to this - I understand this to mean that all class
> > > > dependencies must be present and supplied to ajc via one switch or
> > > > another.  So, as the OP (snippet) states, this would seemingly present
> > > > some problems for class factory situations, if not all concrete classes
> > > > were deployed.  In effect, most (all?) concrete classes would need to be
> > > > deployed.  Question is - is this true?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance.
> > > >
> > > > ,Adam Welch
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > aspectj-users mailing list
> > > > aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > aspectj-users mailing list
> > > aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > aspectj-users mailing list
> > aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
> > 
>