Re: [aspectj-users] Aspect tangles?

["Andy Clement" <andrew.clement@xxxxxxxxx>]

inpath is code that will be subject to weaving, aspectpath is code
that is input to the weaving process but should not be woven.  I could
imagine A on the aspectpath for B so that it can reference aspects on
it (concretize them).

references from A to B.aspectOf() suggest to me that you have
accidentally woven A in the pointcuts/advice you are using?

Andy.


On 29/11/2007, Johan Haleby <haleby@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> B has A added to its manifest file as a Required Plugin whereas A has no
> dependency to B in its manifest file. Both A & B are added as binary inpath
> to the AspectJified projects which should be woven by the aspect(s). Is it
> perhaps enough to add B to the inpath?
>
> Structure 101 reports the following:
> From                       Usage               To
> A.<init>                   references         .B
> A.<init>                   calls                 .B.aspectOf
> A.formatJoinPoint     references         .B
> A.formatJoinPoint     calls                 .B.aspectOf
> A.logWarning           references         .B
> A.logWarning           calls                 .B.aspectOf
>
> (I have of course renamed the aspects to A & B in my mail)
>
>
>
> On Nov 29, 2007 2:12 PM, Andy Clement <andrew.clement@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Are you simply using project dependencies so that B can see A? Or
> > aspectpath? Or inpath?
> >
> > I cannot see a reason for A to reference B unless you have explicitly
> > directly mentioned the types of B in your abstract aspect.  If you
> > supply more information, maybe we can work out why
> >
> > Andy.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 29/11/2007, Johan Haleby <haleby@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I have two aspects and one of them is abstract (A) and the other one (B)
> > > extends A and and provides the concrete implementation. A & B are in two
> > > separate projects. When I examine my project in Structure 101 it says
> that I
> > > have a package tangle between A & B. It seems like A is referencing and
> > > calling B and B must obviously know of A since it extends it. Is this
> the
> > > correct behavior? It's sad that you have to live with an extra tangle
> that I
> > > can do nothing about.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Johan
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
>
>