Re: [aspectj-users] Intertype declarations and precedence

["Wes Isberg" <wes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Conflicts are discussed in the AspectJ Programming Guide, semantics appendix:

  file:///c:/home/wes/dev/tools/aspectj-1.5/doc/progguide/printable.html#conflicts

As you suggest, it says members not visible don't conflict.

Does that help?  Is the current compiler behaving otherwise?

Thanks - 
Wes

> ------------Original Message------------
> From: "Jon S. Baekken" <jbaekken@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Sun, Mar-19-2006 7:50 PM
> Subject: [aspectj-users] Intertype declarations and precedence
>
> Everyone,
> 
> In "AspectJ in Action", p. 120-122, Laddad discusses aspect precedence 
> and
> member introductions, saying that if two aspects introduce the same 
> member,
> only the one from the dominating aspect will survive. However, I can't 
> see
> how this is right, because as far as I know,
> 
> - unless the member is declared private in all places, the program 
> won't
> compile, 
> - when a member is declared private, it's only visible from inside that
> aspect, and
> - each aspect will just use its own private declaration.
> 
> In the example in the book, SecurityAspect has precedence over
> TrackingAspect, but changing the precedence to the opposite has no 
> effect.
> SecurityAspect is still just using its own declarations.
> 
> So, is Laddad incorrect here, has this changed from the AspectJ version 
> he
> used, or am I just not getting the point?
> 
> Jon
> 
> http://www.eecs.wsu.edu/~jbaekken/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> aspectj-users mailing list
> aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>