[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [aspectj-users] super call joinpoints?
|
Oege de Moor said:
>
> Why aren't super calls joinpoints (be it to methods or constructors)?
>
As I recall, it's the goal of having an orthogonal join point model that
excludes super calls as join points.
For the dynamic JPM to be orthogonal in the sense I mean, any kind of advice
should work with any kind of JP (and any kind of pointcut). But since super
calls in constructors must come first, it wouldn't be possible for before
advice to work with super call join points.
The other example of this problem is handler join points. (I suspect that if
we had been doing byte code weaving all along we might never have added them
to the language.)
IMHO, having the JPM not be orthogonal really reduces the idea of
abstraction in named pointcuts, since when you write advice you have to
consider what kind the JPs might actually be, rather than just writing to a
named pointcut abstraction.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: aspectj-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:aspectj-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Oege de Moor
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 3:04 AM
> To: aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [aspectj-users] super call joinpoints?
>
>
> Why aren't super calls joinpoints (be it to methods or constructors)?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aspectj-users mailing list
> aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>
