Re: [aspectj-users] JoinPoint SourceLocation vs. Stack Trace Interigatio

[Gregory Kedge <greg@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>   "Using thisJoinPointStaticPart will avoid the run-time creation  
> of the
>    join point object that may be necessary when using thisJoinPoint  
> directly"
>
> Wes

> > > 	Gregory> It is my understanding that the use of JoinPoint is a
> > > 	Gregory> reflective operation.  [...]
> > >
> > > Have you considered using `thisJoinPointStaticPart'?
> > >
> > > Eric.

Cool.  Got it. Using it. Works great.  Here's the quandary: How is  
the JoinPoint static data obtained?

Prior to JoinPoint, I was unaware of any other Java mechanism to  
obtain file location information beyond the stack trace.  If  
JoinPoint is using a stack trace to fill out it's data, why not just  
do it myself?  I am of course assuming that if I leave off the  
JoinPoint arg, I won't incur the JoinPoint data-gathering hit... IOW:  
If I do this,:

    @After("call (net.kedges.Foo+.new(..))")
    public void fooCreatedHere() {
        System.out.println("Foo created here: " + new Exception 
().getStackTrace()[1].toString());
    }

in lieu of this:

    @After("call (net.kedges.Foo+.new(..))")
    public void fooCreatedHere(JoinPoint.StaticPart  
thisStaticJoinPoint) {
        final SourceLocation sl =  
thisStaticJoinPoint.getSourceLocation();
        final StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder(sl.getWithinType 
().getName());
        sb.append('(').append(sl).append(')');
        System.out.println("Foo created here: " + sb.toString());
    }

I won't generate the JoinPoint data, static or otherwise, because I  
used a signature that didn't require it (BIG ASSUMPTION) and I will  
be doing the exact same process that is performed within the  
JoinPoint. I would tend to agree with anyone that contend that using  
JoinPoint is consistent and familiar in the writing of aspects even  
if JoinPoint employed stack traces...

Sorry if I am over obsessing on this but, asking helps me learn AND  
move on... :-}

Greg K.
gregATkedgesNOSPAMcom