Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [aspectj-users] refactoring code

There an open enhancement (I can't seem to lay my hands on the number
with a quick search...) where the advice can be annotated with a kind
of assertion, and when the assertion breaks it triggers a
warning/error.  Something like @MustMatch or
@ExpectedToMatch(places=5).  Sounds like that would have helped here.

Andy.

2009/4/20 Andrew Eisenberg <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Hi Mike,
>
> There is currently no refactoring support for pointcuts.  So, if a
> pointcut refers to a name that has changed, there will be no
> notification of this.
>
> This is something that has been discussed many times in the past, but
> so far there has not been any proposed solution intregrated into AJDT.
>
> In earlier versions of AJDT, there was a crosscutting comparisons
> view, which would allow you to see how your crosscutting model has
> changed compared to an earlier version of the model.  This feature,
> unfortunately, had to be removed due to incompatibilities with the new
> mechanism for creating the crosscutting model introduced in 1.6.1
> (what was lost in functionality was made up for by significant
> compilation speedup).
>
> I would recommend that you raise a bug for pointcut-aware refactoring
> on bugzilla and if you are interested in contributing to the project,
> we can help guide you along.
>
> --a
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Michael McCray <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I changed a method to public from protected while refactoring.  I had some
>> advice that referred to this method with the whole qualifier (protected void
>> myMethod()), so my advice did not apply.  How hard would it be for AJDT to
>> refactor the pointcut during method alterations?  Or maybe an advice report
>> that shows pointcuts that dropped because of a particular refactoring?  I
>> didn't have a unit test for this particular piece of code, so that would
>> have notified me of the issue.  Is this the recommended direction?  That
>> seems hard to maintain as a crosscutting concern could be quite widely used.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>


Back to the top