Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [aspectj-users] Problems with a basic staticinitialization pointcut in AJDT and Maven 
BTW - were the annotation classes with the <clinit> errors marked with
a RUNTIME @Retention? I'm guessing maybe the non-runtime annotations
probably don't get a clinit...

_________________________
Sent over RFC-1149 compliant transport - please excuse occasionnal packet loss

Le 26 oct. 2012 à 22:31, Andy Clement <andrew.clement@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> Bizarre that you get the missing clinit message when AspectJ is the
> only reason one got inserted... I wonder if there is something wrong
> (maybe flags or something) about the clinit that it inserts in this
> case.  Could be worth raising an issue about:
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/enter_bug.cgi?product=AspectJ
>
> I guess if it isn't triggering when you expect you are probably just
> going to avoid weaving annotations? (which also gets around this
> problem)
>
> cheers,
> Andy
>
> On 26 October 2012 06:49, Timothy Armstrong <tim.armstrong@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think you're probably right about the annotations.  In the tests, I'm just
>> mentioning them by name with their .class object, such as
>> "myAnnotation.class".  It's unfortunate the aspect doesn't trigger then, but
>> I can work around it.  There are hits on Google for 'is missing <clinit>',
>> but only one for 'AspectJ "is missing <clinit>"'.  I couldn't figure it out
>> based on the hits.  Yes, when I remove the staticinitialization aspect, it
>> compiles.  I'm compiling all the annotations from source, if that's what you
>> mean.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/25/2012 08:21 PM, Andy Clement wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> You will only see your message when the static initializer runs. The
>>> class may get loaded and used (to some degree) without that happening.
>>>  For example, here are some simple types:
>>>
>>> @Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
>>> @interface Foo {
>>> }
>>>
>>> public class Code {
>>>   @Foo
>>>   public static void main(String []argv) throws Exception {
>>>   }
>>> }
>>>
>>> I can compile that and run 'Code' without the Foo static initializer
>>> running.
>>>
>>> But if I change Code to do something with it, then we will see the
>>> initializer running:
>>>
>>> public class Code {
>>>   @Foo
>>>   public static void main(String []argv) throws Exception {
>>>     Foo f =
>>> Code.class.getDeclaredMethod("main",String[].class).getAnnotation(Foo.class);
>>>   }
>>> }
>>>
>>> Can it be that some of your code just isn't exercising the annotations
>>> enough to see their static initializers run?
>>>
>>> I've never seen the "is missing <clinit>" message before, but I see it
>>> is classified as a bit odd:
>>> https://forums.oracle.com/forums/thread.jspa?messageID=4824974
>>>
>>> I don't speak Maven very well - is AspectJ being used to build those
>>> annotation types? (I'm not sure if you are building everything from
>>> source or just weaving via a post compile step).
>>>
>>> If you remove your aspect the "is missing" messages all disappear?
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> Andy
>>>
>>> On 25 October 2012 08:24, Timothy Armstrong <tim.armstrong@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your replies. Yes, I get the same behavior when I put version
>>>> 1.6.11 in the POM, just without the "bad version number" warning. I
>>>> should
>>>> have posted that version. I always get the "advice defined in ... has not
>>>> been applied" warnings for the other aspects, but they still work. It
>>>> does
>>>> compile when I specify an annotation, such as
>>>> "staticinitialization(@OWLClass *)". I posted the only lines in the POM
>>>> having to do with AspectJ, so I don't know where else filters would be
>>>> that
>>>> ignore the test tree.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/25/2012 09:19 AM, Krzysztof Dębski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> aspectj-maven-plugin doesn't support aspectj 1.7
>>>>>
>>>>> see: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MASPECTJ-108
>>>>>
>>>>> Krzysztof Debski
>>>>>
>>>>> 2012/10/24 Romain MULLER <romain.muller@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I surely am no maven guru and I won't risk myself in trying to comment
>>>>>> your POM. That said, on the Maven error, I think the following line
>>>>>> could be of some relevance:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [WARNING] bad version number found in
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /home/tim/.m2/repository/org/aspectj/aspectjrt/1.7.0/aspectjrt-1.7.0.jar
>>>>>> expected 1.6.11 found 1.7.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This looks dodgy, I would try to arrange things so that this warning
>>>>>> isn't produced anymore before digging any further on the maven errors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the eclipse side, I'd recommend checking that your AspectJ compiler
>>>>>> options don't have filters that get your test tree ignored by the
>>>>>> compile-time weaver. I know it's kind of an "are you sure your
>>>>>> computer is plugged to a power socket" check, but they very often give
>>>>>> good results ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _________________________
>>>>>> Sent over RFC-1149 compliant transport - please excuse occasionnal
>>>>>> packet
>>>>>> loss
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 24 oct. 2012 à 22:08, Timothy Armstrong <tim.armstrong@xxxxxxx> a
>>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [WARNING] bad version number found in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /home/tim/.m2/repository/org/aspectj/aspectjrt/1.7.0/aspectjrt-1.7.0.jar
>>>>>>> expected 1.6.11 found 1.7.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Back to the top