Re: [aspectj-users] Newbie question

[W.Leeson@xxxxxxx]

Thanks,
        Sorry
about the delayed response.That seems to work for me fine for me now. However,
I take it that in general I should use simpler pointcuts. Thanks a million
for the help.
Regards,.
William Leeson
Software Development

PILZ Ireland Industrial Automation,
Business & Technology Park, Model Farm Road, Cork, Ireland.
Telephone +353 (021)  4804-982, Fax +353 (021) 4804-994
E-Mail: mailto:w.leeson@xxxxxxx, Internet: http://www.pilz.ie

Andrew Clement <CLEMAS@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: aspectj-users-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx

17/01/2005 11:09

Please respond to
aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx

To	aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject	Re: [aspectj-users] Newbie question

Hi William, 

Until recently we had a limitation on binding things multiple times - and
we'd 
produce an error - *this was regardless of whether you (as the developer)
know 
they are binding to the same thing*. 

Actually when I ran your testcode on AspectJ 1.5.0M1 it is the first set
that 
fails for me and the second set that work.  This is what I expected,
because if 
you 'expand' the methods() pointcut in the first case it looks like:

pointcut methods(TestClass tc): ((target(tc) && call(public * set*(..))
&& args(int)) || 
                    
            (target(tc) && call(public
* get*(..))); 

and according to the rules about binding, we see 'tc' twice on the right
and 
fail. 

But, that has been fixed since 1.5.0M1 and if you download
the current build, it will succeed with either variant of your pointcuts:

http://download.eclipse.org/technology/ajdt/dev/aspectj-DEVELOPMENT.jar

There is currently no AJDT that contains this level of AspectJ but there
will 
be shortly... 

cheers, 
Andy. 
--- 
Andy Clement 
AspectJ 
clemas@xxxxxxxxxx

W.Leeson@xxxxxxx
Sent by: aspectj-users-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx

17/01/2005 10:20

Please respond to
aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx

To	aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject	[aspectj-users] Newbie question

Hi All, 
       Just started using AspectJ on Friday last week and
have being doing a bit of experimentation but have a quick question about
the following pointcut definitions 
 
// 1st 
pointcut setMethods(TestClass tc): target(tc) && call(public *
set*(..)) && args(int); 
pointcut getMethods(TestClass tc): target(tc) && call(public *
get*(..)); 
pointcut methods(TestClass tc): (setMethods(tc) || getMethods(tc));
       
// 2nd 
pointcut setMethods(): call(public * set*(..)) && args(int);
pointcut getMethods(): call(public * get*(..)); 
pointcut methods(TestClass tc): target(tc) && (setMethods() ||
getMethods()); 

Now what I don't understand is why does the first version of methods work
and the second one produce the following error 

Cannot use target() to match at this location and bind to formal type 'TestClass'
- the formal is already bound to 'TestClass'. The secondary source location
points to the problematic target(). 
       -TestAspect.before(TestClass):methods..
       -TestAspect.after(TestClass):methods..

at the following code fragment 

       tc.setValue(0); 

From my understanding I think they should evaluate to the same thing. I
am sure I am missing something some thing fundamental here.

Regards, 
William Leeson
Software Development

PILZ Ireland Industrial Automation,
Business & Technology Park, Model Farm Road, Cork, Ireland.
Telephone +353 (021)  4804-982, Fax +353 (021) 4804-994
E-Mail: mailto:w.leeson@xxxxxxx, Internet: http://www.pilz.ie

This email is intended solely for the use of the named addressee(s). Any
unauthorised disclosure, copying or distribution of the confidential information
contained therein, or the taking of any action based on it, is prohibited.
The sender disclaims any liability for the integrity of this email. Legally
binding declarations must be in written form. 

This email is intended solely for the use of the named addressee(s). Any
unauthorised disclosure, copying or distribution of the confidential information
contained therein, or the taking of any action based on it, is prohibited.
The sender disclaims any liability for the integrity of this email. Legally
binding declarations must be in written form.