RE: [aspectj-users] More precedence

[Lesiecki Nicholas <ndlesiecki@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for answering Erik, I understand the answers to all the questions I
had.

> We probably should add "using a non-aspect type without a +
> in a dominates clause" to our Xlint warnings.

That would be wonderful. Only you might want to change it to: 
"using a non-*concrete*-aspect type without a + in a dominates clause"

(since the behavior is the same in either case).

Cheers,
Nick
--- hilsdale@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> Nicholas,
> 
> Thanks again for the test case [discussed on the dev list].
> As for your "by the way" question:
> 
> In general, if you're dealing with a hierarchy of aspects,
> you'll want to use the + operator.  So in your case just
> saying
> 
>     declare dominates: Super, B;
> 
> won't do anything if Super is not a concrete aspect.  But
> using
> 
>     declare dominates: Super+, B;
> 
> will be fine.
> 
> No error will be shown for putting a non-aspect type into
> the list, specifically to allow using marker interfaces to
> pick out aspects for the list.
> 
>     interface ReallyImportant {}
> 
>     aspect ReallyImportantCoordination {
>         declare dominates: ReallyImportant+, *;
>     }
> 
>     aspect Roles {
>         declare parents:
>             Security implements ReallyImportant;
>     }
> 
> We probably should add "using a non-aspect type without a +
> in a dominates clause" to our Xlint warnings.
> 
> -erik
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lesiecki Nicholas [mailto:ndlesiecki@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, 31 December, 2002 11:42 am
> Subject: RE: [aspectj-users] More precedence
> 
> 
> I can try to turn the example into a precedence test
> case. It may take a few days as I'm under a deadline.
> 
> By the way, does it have any meaning to put:
> 
>  aspect Dominates {
>      declare dominates : Super, B;  // No +
>  }
> 
> The changes page refered to the fact that only concrete
> aspects are affected by precedence. Does this mean that
> Super (no plus) is illegal or meaningless? Or does it mean
> the same as Super+?
> 
> Also, what should happen if you put a non-aspect type into
> the list?
> 
> Can I use a marker interface to pick out aspects for the
> list?
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Nick
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> --- Jim.Hugunin@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> This is a bug as Wes says.  It's fixed in the current
> version of the compiler in cvs.  It was a simple matter of
> using the wrong API for type pattern matching in the
> implementation of declare dominates.
> 
> The test suite would benefit from a more extensive test than
> we currently have for this precedence case.  If Nick could
> turn his example into something that would throw an
> exception if the precedence was wrong that would be good.
> 
> -Jim
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: isberg@xxxxxxxx [mailto:isberg@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 9:36 AM
> Subject: RE: [aspectj-users] More precedence
> 
> It looks to me like
> 
>   declare dominates : Super+, ...
> 
> is just broken now.  Anyone care to submit a bug?
> 
> Wes
> ------------- DominatesAdvice.java
> 
>     public class DominatesAdvice {
>         public static void main (String[] args) {
>             new C().run();
>         }
>         pointcut run() : target(C) && call(void run());
>         static void log(String s) {
>             System.out.println(""+s);
>         }
>     }
> 
>     class C { void run() {}}
>     class Super {}
>     aspect A extends Super {
>         before () : DominatesAdvice.run() {
>             DominatesAdvice.log("A");
>         }
>     }
>     aspect B {
>         before () : DominatesAdvice.run() {
>             DominatesAdvice.log("B");
>         }
> 
>     aspect Dominates {
>         declare dominates : Super+, B;  // BUG: produces B, A
>         //declare dominates : A, B;  // ok: produces A, B
>     }
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lesiecki Nicholas [mailto:ndlesiecki@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 8:36 AM
> Subject: RE: [aspectj-users] More precedence
> 
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> Sorry, my message got truncated. Unfortunately I've left the
> sample code at home.
> 
> The upshot is that for:
> 
> declare dominates : Security+, *;
> 
> the precedence appears to be:
> 
> Tracing
> Notification
> MoreSecurity
> CustomSecurity
> Security (abstract)
> Security (a second time)
> (JoinPoint)
> 
> i.e. Security LAST.
> 
> For:
> 
> declare dominates : *Security*, *;
> 
> The order is:
> 
> MoreSecurity
> CustomSecurity
> Security (abstract)
> Security (a second time)
> Tracing
> Notification
> (JoinPoint)
> 
> i.e. Security FIRST.
> 
> Why should Security+ and *Security* produce different
> results? They both (should) select the same set of Concrete
> aspects (CustomSecurity and MoreSecurity). Am I missing
> something?
> 
> BTW, the sample code is ridiculously simple. Each aspect has
> a single piece of before advice that prints what it's doing
> to the console.  All of the advice affects call(void
> doSomething()). The only doSomething() method in the
> compilation unit appears in SomeObject.
> 
> SomeObject's main:
> main(){
>   new SomeObject().doSomething();
> }
> 
> Cheers,
> nick
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> --- isberg@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> Did the mailing list clip this question?
> Did you decide against it, after accidental send?
> 
> (btw, thanks for the bugs)
> 
> Wes
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lesiecki Nicholas [mailto:
> Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 9:16 PM
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com