[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [aspectj-users] Weaving with aspectJ from different packages

Without seeing any code, the only wild guess would be that you should
check the access modifiers of the methods you want to match. Normal AJ
aspects are fully compliant to java access modifiers.

just a very wild guess,

./alex
--
.w( the_mindstorm )p.


On 6/3/06, Trasca Virgil <virgil_trasca@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi all,

      I have 2 packages P1 and P2. With aspectj I want
to catch all calls from P2 to public interface of P1 +
some calls from P2 to P2.

      I was able to do that by putting the aspectJ
code(aj file) into P2 and compiling with iajc the P2.
But I need to put the aspectJ code in a totally
separated package P3 and to get the same result.
      Moving the aspectJ code(aj file) in package P3
and building P3 with iajc I am able to build with
SUCCESS but I am not getting any pointcut. What I am
wrong? Is not possible to catch calls from P2 to P1
and from P2 to P2 by putting the aspectJ code in a
separate package P3 and making iajc on P3?

Thanks a lot,
Virgil

--- aspectj-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Send aspectj-users mailing list submissions to
>       aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
> visit
>
>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body
> 'help' to
>       aspectj-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>       aspectj-users-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it
> is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of aspectj-users digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. RE: If pointcut and side effects (Eric Bodden)
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:21:43 -0400
> From: "Eric Bodden" <eric.bodden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [aspectj-users] If pointcut and side
> effects
> To: <aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID:
>
>
<F3EB3B98C34E94498F1110B618E3717D5CAE0E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain;     charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hello.
>
> > Is it correct then to say that in the absence of
> if pointcuts with
> side
> > effects, the evaluation order does not matter? No
> other pointcut than
> > if can have side effects?
>
> That should be correct, yes.
>
>
> > I understand you wonder where I want to go with
> this :) I'm doing
> > analysis of control and data dependencies in
> relation to faults in
> > pointcuts, and in such a scenario it could be
> useful to be able to
> > state things about control and data dependencies
> between the different
> > conditions of a pointcut.
>
> I see.
>
> > But relying on implementation decisions is
> > probably a bad thing anyway.
>
> Certainly.
>
> Eric
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> aspectj-users mailing list
> aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>
>
> End of aspectj-users Digest, Vol 16, Issue 4
> ********************************************
>

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