[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [aspectj-users] Modified classes of the Jar files in Inpath (which shouldn't be modified)
- From: "bora.erbas" <bora.erbas@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 02:42:15 -0800 (PST)
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
Hi there, thanks a lot for the response.
At the moment I am not able to provide a code snippet.
When using javap I used -c -private to create the assembly codes, and
compared both files using WinMerge which actually compares every bit of
them. There is no single difference.
Now I will try the command line stuff as you suggested and see what happens.
I will try to come back with more details, and a snippet of code too.
When I mentioned that there is a side-effect class file; I didn't mean that
a class file appears as a side effect, I meant a class file is modified even
though (I think) it shouldn't be modified; the side effect is not the file
itself, it is it being modified. Anyway, I hope I managed to make this
clearer, because I think it is not clear in my original post. The class file
is just an ordinary class file from the 3rd party framework, which happens
to be used as an argument in the advice that causes it to be modified. Can
this be a clue? But the advice does not apply to it...
Anyway, I will come back with more info.
Thanks a lot.
Andy Clement wrote:
> If you are able to include a snippet of code that always helps makes
> the situation easier for us to understand. What is the name of the
> 'side effect file'? If AspectJ is unable to implement inlining for
> around advice, you will get closure classes generated during weaving.
> You say you used javap to compare the two files - did you compare
> every part of them, not just the method contents but everything - was
> there a large attribute in the larger of the two? Did you use
> '-private' when you ran javap?
> As I say - a bit of code that demonstrates what you are seeing would
> help immensely. I cannot recreate this without more info. Have you
> tried performing your compilation step outside of AJDT, does it behave
> in the same unusual way on the command line?
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Modified-classes-of-the-Jar-files-in-Inpath-%28which-shouldn%27t-be-modified%29-tf3299223.html#a9179471
Sent from the AspectJ - users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.