Re: [aspectj-users] Introducing JDT Weaving

[Dave Whittaker <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Andrew,

I tried an "Open Type" and was able to pull up one of my aspects by  
name, so if that's what you mean then it seems like the weaving  
service has been started.  I haven't noticed any AspectJ related  
logging to the console though.

Plugins folder is writable and I've got all my plugins installed to  
the default location.

This is probably the smallest interface / aspect combo affected (they  
are all affected as far as I can tell).  I get an error on delete()  
that it is a duplicate method within the interface and syntax errors  
on the whole ITD method declaration.  Could it have to do with the  
generic parameter?

public interface DeleteAction<T>{

	public void delete();
	
	public T getSelected();

}

public aspect DeleteActionAspect {

	public void DeleteAction<T>.delete() {
		T selected = getSelected();
		if(selected == null)
			throw new NullPointerException("Selected object is null");
		if(selected instanceof Permanent){
			Permanent permanent = (Permanent)selected;
			permanent.toggleActive();
		}
		H2Lookup.em().remove(selected);
	}

}

On Dec 3, 2008, at 3:57 PM, Andrew Eisenberg wrote:

> HI Dave,
>
> Thanks for trying and letting me know about this.  That's why this has
> not been officially released yet.
>
> There are several possibilities here:
>
> 1. the weaving service hasn't started and so reconciling isn't  
> working properly
> 2. something about the way you are using ITDs is breaking the  
> reconciler.
>
> First, do you know if the weaving service has been installed (do you
> see lots of weaving messages sent to the console, or can you see
> aspects in open type dialogs)?   In order for the plugin to be
> installed properly, you must have a writable Eclipse installation and
> AJDT must be co-located with it.
>
> If the weaving service is started, then can you please send me a
> sample of the code that is broken.
>
> thanks,
> --a
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Dave Whittaker <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>  
> wrote:
> > I love the idea, but is anyone else seeing more errors within  
> > intertype
> > declarations than before?  I'm getting duplicate method errors  
> > within an
> > interface on any method defined within an ITD and in the ITD itself  
> > there
> > are syntax errors everywhere.....  Just to clarify, I'm talking  
> > about red
> > sqigglies here, everything still seems to compile fine.