Re: [aspectj-users] Removing fields

[Andy Clement <andrew.clement@xxxxxxxxx>]

I see, so we are already talking about entirely different
mechanisms... this is definetly not something to rush.  I was
imagining a construct similar to a field ITD that removed the named
field rather than adding it, but you are talking about some variant of
advice for this.  A kind of field set/get joinpoint around advice
where the field is removed as part of being advised, sounds a bit
scary.  Definetly needs more thought.  I wonder if any readers of the
list from academia have spent time thinking about using AOP for
removal of program pieces? (anyone?)

This is why I went ahead with annotation removal, it is much more simple.

cheers
Andy

On 24 June 2011 09:21, John Patterson <jdpatterson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Andy, I simplistically imagined that the advice that replaced the field
> would need to handle "getfield" and "setfield" (if it was not final) so
> anything in the class that previously accessed that private field would call
> the advice code instead.  Kind of like in Eclipse when you refactor a field
> to be encapsulated with a getter and setter.
>
> On 24/06/2011 22:53, Andy Clement wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Removing annotations was the first time we'd explored any kind of
>> removal of something from a type.  I'm nervous about going further,
>> even with something like fields it would be very easy to leave a class
>> in a state where other types that depend upon on it are then broken. I
>> guess if it was scoped down to private fields and you couldn't do it
>> if we determined any code in that type was using the field, we could
>> do something.  But that kind of code (detecting if the field is used
>> somewhere) is not something we already have so would need writing and
>> integrating into the weaver pipeline.  Would these kinds of fields
>> have getters/setters - what would happen to those? If only used in a
>> getter/setter is it still safe to remove, if the getters/setters are
>> also removed we're back to the case of leaving other code that depends
>> on us in a broken state.  I just think there are a lot of things to
>> think through for a general solution.
>>
>> cheers
>> Andy
>>
>> On 23 June 2011 19:46, John Patterson<jdpatterson@xxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi, I read that the recent 1.6.11 release adds the ability to remove
>>> annotations and was wondering if the ability to remove fields was also
>>> likely to be added.
>>> http://code.google.com/p/salve/wiki/WhyNotAspectJ
>>> This brilliant library seems a little hamstrung without the ability to
>>> replace dependency fields.
>>> Cheers,
>>> John
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>