[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [aspectj-users] New feature of Aspectj 1.6.11

Hi,

I actually have a whiteboard covered in syntax proposals around this topic :)

Yes, for compatibility reasons we have to maintain the existing
defined behaviour without inclusion of any special characters.  It
will annotate the target or report an error if the target is already
annotated.

- removes them

+ could be used for replace.

But then what would you use for augment?

Suppose I have this annotation:

@interface Foo {
   String value() default "abc";
   int i() default 4;
}

and this annotated target

@Foo(value="hello")
int aField;

What is the syntax for adding a value for 'i' to that annotation,
whilst keeping 'value="hello"'

declare @field: int aField: +@Foo(i=5)

according to your rules, that would replace the existing annotation
with yours, losing the 'value' of hello.  It almost feels like '+'
should stand for augment (plus meaning 'additive'), but then what else
could we use for replace?

Perhaps augment could be this? (not providing a new value for 'value'
- but specifying it to say 'preserve any value it might already have')

declare @field: int aField: +@Foo(value,i=5)

Andy

On 11 December 2010 09:47, Pasturel <jean-louis.pasturel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I open a new thread to discuss the new feature of 1.6.11 about declare
> annotation
>
> The M1 comes with the removal of an annotation of field like specified in
> the readme :
>
> declare @field: int Foo.i: -@Anno;
>
> It gives me an idea with the + sign as this :
> declare @field: int Foo.i: +@Anno(param=<newValue>);
>
> that means a force replace : if @Anno exists remove it and replaces with the
> new parametrized @Anno.If not already exists creates it with the
> parametrized Anno.
>
> Without the - sign and without  the + sign, it creates the Annotation on
> field or if already exists throws an exception ( that is certainly the
> current behavior =>  Andy?).
>
> What do you think about that ?
>
> JL PASTUREL
>
> <Andy_Post>
>
> Hi,
>
> I didn't write about using it in that way as we don't 100% yet define
> the rules there - well I might define it as undefined right now:)   It
> might work right now but I'd need to confirm I want that ordering to
> remain reliable and stable.  Any values you specify for the removal
> are actually not used right now, the removal is done based solely on
> the name - this means you'll get what you want if the removal runs
> first.  I might add value matching enforcement later.  Yes, at some
> point it will be added across all the declare annotation forms for
> consistency.
>
> Andy
> </Andy_Post>
>
>
> On 9 December 2010 23:14,<jeanlouis.pasturel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
>
>>  I see that 1.6.11M1 includes removal Annotation for field.
>>  Just a question :
>>  Is this kind of declare annotation below, supported in the same aspect :
>> ?
>>
>>  @Aspect
>>  public class MyAspect
>>  {
>>  declare @field: int Foo.i: -@Anno(init=0);
>>  declare @field: int Foo.i: @Anno(init=5);
>>  ...
>>
>>  }
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aspectj-users mailing list
> aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>