Re: [aspectj-users] Intertype declaration name mangling - for or agains

[Matthew Adams <matthew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm for it as well, and would be for switching the default to
nonmangled.  I think the social impact of mangled names is negative,
as is the fact that the fields are public, but that is another issue,
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=288282.

-matthew

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Ramnivas Laddad
<ramnivas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I am all for this. Mangled names create problems with JPA and such.
> I guess one issue to consider is what happens when two aspects want to
> introduce a same-named field with a directive to not mangle, especially if
> both aspects are from third-party libraries. This is quite unlikely to occur
> in practice, but we may need to address it somehow. I wonder if the 'declare
> precedence' can be an arbitrator here.
> -Ramnivas
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Andy Clement <andrew.clement@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>>
>> I'm possibly going to review our approach to intertype declaration
>> naming.  The names are currently mangled deliberately to preserve some
>> of the 'rules' that AspectJ defines.  For example, private field itds
>> have mangled names because the field is private to the aspect and
>> shouldn't be visible as a 'regular' private field in the target.  This
>> also enables two aspects to ITD the same private field and there is no
>> clash in the target type.
>>
>> However, since those rules were defined a long time ago, things have
>> changed and various frameworks are looking at members via reflection,
>> for purposes of invocation or automatic persistence.  The mangling is
>> unhelpful here.
>>
>> I *thinking* about allowing non-mangled names, possibly with a
>> directive annotation in the aspect that says "do not mangle these, I
>> know what I'm doing and there won't be a problem".
>>
>> Basically I wanted to collect any thoughts from you guys?
>>
>> I suspect that the some of the scenarios AspectJ worries about rarely
>> happen in practice - have you ever ITD'd the same named private field
>> from two aspects onto the same type?  (AspectJ can continue to
>> warn/error when it sees this about to happen of course)
>>
>> cheers,
>> Andy
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>



-- 
mailto:matthew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
skype:matthewadams12
yahoo:matthewadams
aol:matthewadams12
google-talk:matthewadams12@xxxxxxxxx
msn:matthew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://matthewadams.me
http://www.linkedin.com/in/matthewadams