Re: [aspectj-users] New feature of Aspectj 1.6.11

[Frank Pavageau <frank.pavageau@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jean-Louis,

why would adding / replacing @Foo remove @Bar at the same time,
without an explicit -@Bar? I definitely want to have several
annotations on the same field / method / whatever at the same time and
only modify some of them :-)

Frank

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 8:10 AM,  <jeanlouis.pasturel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Andy,
> Your analysis is deeper than my first idea and more correct.
>
> <Andy>
> @interface Foo {
>   String value() default "abc";
>   int i() default 4;
> }
>
> and this annotated target
>
> @Foo(value="hello")
> int aField;
>
> declare @field: int aField: +@Foo(value,i=5)
>
> To 'preserve any value it might already have'
> </Andy>
>
> Ok with this proposal and :
>
>  if aField has @Bar annotation, @Bar is removed and replaced by @Foo,  with
> the statement above, the default value is set for value ( "abc") or it can
> be overrided like :
>        declare @field: int aField: +@Foo(value="hello",i=5)
>
>
> Do we have the same understanding of the behavior?
>
> Cordialement / Best regards
>
> Jean-Louis Pasturel
>
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : aspectj-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:aspectj-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] De la part de Andy Clement
> Envoyé : lundi 13 décembre 2010 18:57
> À : aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Objet : 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> aspectj-users mailing list
> aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>
>
>
> *********************************
> This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees.
> Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited.
> Messages are susceptible to alteration.
> France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified.
> If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender.
> ********************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> aspectj-users mailing list
> aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>