[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [aspectj-users] Overall problem with AJDT performance
- From: Andrew Eisenberg <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 08:17:20 -0700
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=ZRBEBHnwmYx4dRlW9NLUYZfIwDHRjwoovWe6z6TTn8UfXMQXo85V/RcYcadD2iQAmB nhm5vFL+wDPjgBuY+Vh64RRFMbLhlZBImleufDmsCquVpHXAl8C284KVku6Eno/3igu7 S4V+nVvhseJMrEr5rBlVTaR0NNf/3WrrNB0C4=
One potential solution here is to make the aspects in your aspect
libraries abstract. These abstract apsects will have an abstract
pointcut to be implemented in projects that put the aspect library on
the aspect path. This abstract pointcut could provide the scoping.
I have to head out now, but I'll respond to other parts of your email soon.
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Thomas Hofmann <email@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Will the other three aspects visible on the aspect path of com.dcx.ivkmds.application.ass have a great negative performance impact? Would this require within()?
> What I don't like about within() is that it kind of turns dependencies around. If I need to specify within() in the aspects that are part of the framework I need to know what other parts of the framework make use of them.
> I even have to make the clients of the framework visible to the framework. This would result in cycles I believe.