[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [aspectj-users] policy enforcement for parameterless constructor and certain field declaration
|
Hi Andy,
thanks for your detailed answer. I understand you're dealing with a
limited set of resources so certainly I did not want to complain about
the lack of docs :) Now as you say, I checked the second edition of
AspectJ in Action I own and it mentions the hasmember features but in
about 10 lines as an experimental feature.
At last I think I've found the unit tests I you mentioned in the Tools
CVS here: http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/viewvc.cgi/org.aspectj/modules/tests/?root=Tools_Project
and grepped around in them but unfortunately I still struggle with the
correct syntaxes of hasmember.
Here's a test of the two use cases what I'm trying to accomplish (I
did turn on XhasMember both in ajdt and maven):
public aspect HasMemberTest {
@Target(ElementType.FIELD)
@Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
public static @interface Injected {
}
@Target(ElementType.TYPE)
@Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
public static @interface Managed {
}
public static class Sample {
@Injected
private SampleManaged match1;
@Injected
private String match2;
}
@Managed
public static class SampleManaged {
public SampleManaged(int foo) {}
}
declare error: hasfield((@Injected *) *): "hit match1"; // try to
simply match 'match1' as an @Injected field
declare error: hasfield(@Injected (!(@Managed *) *): "hit match2"; //
try to match 'match2' as injection of a not @Managed type
declare error: within(@Managed *) && !hasmethod(new()) : "no default
constructor"; // try to match SampleManaged non-default constructor
}
where the first declare fails to match and the other two is not
syntaxically correct in spite of I've spent a couple of hours now
trying to get them right (ok, the second one looks a bit too funky for
me as well).
Is type pattern matching complete with annotation usage?
thanks,
K
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Andy Clement <andrew.clement@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 26 May 2011 01:36, Kristof Jozsa <kristof.jozsa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hmm I wasn't yet aware of this hasmember feature. I tried to google
>> around and also checked my copy of Aspectj in Action but could not
>> find much examples.
>
> I can't recall if it was covered, but if it was it would be in the
> second edition (not the first) of AspectJ in action. Given that it is
> still an 'optional' feature, I'm not sure if Ramnivas did cover it or
> not.
>
>> Are there any usage details on hasfield/hasmethod somewhere? Also, is
>> there a unit test suite which I could check for examples? The AspectJ
>> source download doesn't seem to include any tests..
>
> There are numerous tests in AspectJ for this. The source for the
> tests is not available in zip form though, it is only in the
> repository. The source zips downloadable alongside the distribution
> are only for what is in the distribution. Searching the source I see
> about 30/40 tests.
>
> The feature is actually described in this bug:
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=86818 - which you'll
> actually see is still open. It is still open because you have to
> switch on this feature with -XhasMember, it still hasn't been made
> 'default'. It isn't default because it still doesn't play nicely with
> all the other language features (basically ITDs) - until it does it
> will still be something to opt into.
>
> But it was only in 1.6.9 that I added the ability to use type patterns
> with declare warning/error:
> http://www.eclipse.org/aspectj/doc/released/README-169.html
>
> ---
> It is now possible to use a type pattern with declare warning and
> declare error. For example:
> declare warning: I+ && !hasfield(int i): "Implementations of I are
> expected to have a int field called i";
> ---
> I do acknowledge (and apologise that) the main docs don't cover it
> properly. We last had the resource to do a good docs update for 1.5.0
> and that was all focussed on generics/annotations/etc when AspectJ was
> upgraded for Java5. Since then it is basically the sequence of
> READMEs that detail what has happened with AspectJ.
>
> Here is one of our testcases for it:
> ===
> public aspect HasMethod {
>
> declare parents : hasmethod(* print(..)) implements Printable;
>
> public static void main(String[] args) {
> C c = new C();
> if (! (c instanceof Printable)) {
> throw new RuntimeException("declare parents : hasmethod failed");
> }
> }
> }
>
> class C {
> public void print() {}
> }
>
> interface Printable {};
> ===
>
> cheers
> Andy
>
>> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Matthew Adams <matthew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> For the first one, you might try using "declare error" with a type
>>> pattern that uses hasmember. Not sure what you mean by the second,
>>> but declare error with hasmember might do the trick there, too.
>>>
>>> -matthew
>>>
>>> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Kristof Jozsa <kristof.jozsa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> I'd like to ask for help with two policy enforcement rules:
>>>> - enforce a class having no constructor with arguments (a default or a
>>>> parameterless constructor is fine)
>>>> - enforce an annotated field being of a certain type
>>>>
>>>> For the second one I currently enforce the get() of the field which is not
>>>> too bad, but would be nicer to disallow the field declaration.. if possible.
>>>>
>>>> Can anyone show me an example doing these tricks?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks a lot,
>>>> K
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> aspectj-users mailing list
>>>> aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> @matthewadams12
>>> 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
