[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: R: Re: [aspectj-users] ITD syntax



Hi Herman,
you perfectly got the point. We are moving from IDT to something else, and that what I felt in the first place without being able to express it with the clarity you had. I agree on splitting this thread on "A simpler syntax for IDTs" and "A delegation approach to IDTs".


As long as the simpler syntax for IDTs in involved, I like Dave's proposal, also because it uses a construct very similar to the "with", which is present in a number of languages but missing in Java, and many programmers are already used to it. Also, it simply requires less typing without changing the semnatics of the IDT.

There can be better ways of doing mixins/IDTs, including the delegation based ones, but that's another discussion.

Simone

----- Messaggio originale -----
Da: Ichthyostega <prg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
A: aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
Posta Inviata: giovedì 4 dicembre 2008 22.42.08 GMT+0100 Europe/Berl in
Oggetto: Re: [aspectj-users] ITD syntax


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Dave,

> I'm glad for this discussion because it's helped me in refining how I think
> this would work best.
Same here. I saw your answer just after posting mine.
Probably we are facing a decision on two possible routes to take:


- - provide some convenience for Delegation using AspectJ
- - stick to the ITD semantics but provide a better syntax.

My feeling is we would be best off if we took a clear decision on
one of those routes and don't try to mix them up. Even if we were
able to come with a combined solution, it will confuse people.

Thus, if we go the "Delegation" route, "this" should be really rebound
the moment we are within the scope of the delegate to mean the delegate,
the same way as if all of this was just implemented in plain Java.
OTOH, when going the "ITD" route, the source class (ITDDefaultImpl
or DoSomethingImpl) is rather sort-of a template for code woven into
the target. I.e., at runtime, no class DoSomethingImpl will be loaded.
Then the question remains what should happen with private fields.
Consider, both the class Doer and class DoSomethingImpl may use
a private field with the same name for their implementation.


Hermann





-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJOE6wZbZrB6HelLIRAjRcAJ9lpaNl/nFsSX/dTl34LL364s5qyQCfQ8wS
CmLlX5bTe+LvoI6V8sh29K8=
=EYAe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
aspectj-users mailing list
aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users