> Hi all,
>
> I was wondering whether we can expose the target object of a call pointcut.
>
> Consider the following simple class:
>
> class C {
>
> public C () {}
> ...
> }
>
> along with the simple call pointcut and an after returning advice that uses
> such a pointcut:
>
> pointcut callConst(C c) : call (public C.new()) && target(c);
>
> after (C c) returning() : callConst(c){
>
> //advice code
> }
>
> The call pointcut callConst() will match any call to C's constructor but
> only when it does not include the target designator. Without the target
> designator we cannot expose the target object.
>
> So, in the above example, the call is not matched! If we change the call to
> execution pointcut it matches normally (with context exposure )!
>
> I want to know the main problem to have accessible the target object in a
> call pointcut that is used in a after returning advice. As I said, we can
> expose the object If we use a after returning advice with execution
> pointcut. But, according to the AspectJ semantics, after returning call will
> occurs just after the method finishes its execution, so I ask again, Why we
> cannot use context exposure during a call? (at this time the, the
> constructor already instantiated the object!!). Is there a reason for that?
> or just a language limitation...
>
> I just want to have interesting discussions about the AspectJ semantics!
>
> cheers,
> Henrique
>
> --
> ...............................................................................................................................
> Henrique Rebelo
>
http://www.cin.ufpe.br/~hemr
> Informatics Center, UFPE, Brazil
>
