Re: [aspectj-users] Two aspects ITDing the same field onto a target typ

[Olle Hallin <olle.hallin@xxxxxx>]

But do people really know (or care) what ITDs aspect libraries contain?

Or are pehaps aspect libraries not used very much?

Olle

Olle Hallin
Senior Java Developer and Architect
olle.hallin@xxxxxxxx
www.crisp.se
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ollehallin

2010/1/21 Andy Clement <andrew.clement@xxxxxxxxx>

Hi Olle,

yes, that is the main option I am considering (as it is minimal effort
on my part) but I mainly posted to know how much pain a change like
this would cause as this is something that always 'just works' with
the existing strategy.  If enough users complained that it would
affect them, I would try come up with a more sophisticated solution,
but so far no-one seems to mind.  So far I've only ever seen this come
up with AspectJ test programs that are deliberately trying to do it, I
don't have a real world scenario that demonstrates the need for it.

cheers,
Andy

2010/1/21 Olle Hallin <olle.hallin@xxxxxx>:

> Why not let transparent weaving be default, with compile error for name
> clashes?
> If someone (perhaps much later) writes a second ITD (or uses a third-party
> aspect) that causes a name clash, only then the transparent weaving must be
> disabled.
> Olle Hallin
> Senior Java Developer and Architect
> olle.hallin@xxxxxxxx
> www.crisp.se
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/ollehallin
>
>
> 2010/1/20 Andy Clement <andrew.clement@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> I'm currently looking at transparent weaving, this is where the
>> resultant bytecode looks more like the user might guess it would based
>> on their declarations.  Consider:
>>
>> class Foo {
>> }
>>
>> aspect Bar {
>>  private int Foo.i
>> }
>>
>> Compiling that will not give field 'i' on Foo *if* you look at
>> Foo.class through javap.  Instead it will be a mangled name.  I would
>> like to preserve the name but it leaves me with this problem:
>>
>> class Foo { }
>>
>> aspect BarOne {
>>  private int Foo.i
>> }
>>
>> aspect BarTwo {
>>  private int Foo.i
>> }
>>
>> which, with the 'old style' of ITDs will work fine as the mangled
>> names won't clash.  In a transparent weaving world I'm trying to
>> decide the best way to handle it, so I thought I'd ask here if anyone
>> is actually doing it?
>> The options would seem to be:
>> - make it a compile error to do it (seems a shame when it could be done
>> before)
>> - one of them gets the name 'i' and the other gets a mangled name.
>> Possible but a lot of implementation work.
>> - make transparent weaving an option and not the default mode, so a
>> user has to request it at compile time. (I'd rather avoid this if I
>> can and have transparent be the default)
>>
>> Remember, there is no change here to ITD semantics, purely in how they
>> are represented in the resultant bytecode.  So - do you ever ITD the
>> same named field onto a type from two different aspects?
>>
>> thanks,
>> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
aspectj-users mailing list
aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users