[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [aspectj-users] Compile-time signature

Ok! Yes sure!

On Feb 26, 2018 20:31, "Andy Clement" <andrew.clement@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I did do some initial exploration work and it turned out to be bigger impact than Iâd hoped. Doesnât mean it wonât happen - just that itâll take longer. If I did get you a snapshot build with prototype code in it, would you be able to try it out and see if it behaves in your situation?

cheers,
Andy

> On Feb 26, 2018, at 4:41 AM, Fabian Bergmark <fabian.bergmark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Any progress?
>
> Cheers,
> Fabian
>
> 2018-01-10 19:48 GMT+01:00 Andy Clement <andrew.clement@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> The proper optimization here is to use the LDC byte code that takes a
>> constant class, rather than the string variant and then class loading. The
>> original AspectJ used the string form because LDC didn't take a class
>> originally. Over the years a few places have been updated but not
>> everywhere ( thisEnclosingJoinPoint is one of them that hasn't been done I
>> think). Let me have a look at what I can do. For a while we had to tolerate
>> both modes because LDC class was quite new, but it has been there so long
>> now I think we can assume you are on a JVM that will have it.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Andy
>>
>>
>> On 10 January 2018 at 01:42, Fabian Bergmark <fabian.bergmark@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm using both AspectJ and Proguard in a project. On of my aspects
>>> inserts MDC-information in logging messages, including source location
>>> and method:
>>>
>>> void around() : call(void org.slf4j.Logger.trace(..)) || call(void
>>> org.slf4j.Logger.debug(..)) || call(void org.slf4j.Logger.info(..)) ||
>>> call(void org.slf4j.Logger.warn(..)) || call(void
>>> org.slf4j.Logger.error(..)) {
>>>Â Â Â Â try (MDC.MDCCloseable c3 =
>>> MDC.putCloseable("logging_aspect::location",
>>> thisJoinPoint.getSourceLocation().toString());
>>>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MDC.MDCCloseable c4 =
>>> MDC.putCloseable("logging_aspect::method",
>>> thisEnclosingJoinPointStaticPart.getSignature().toString())) {
>>>Â Â Â Â Â Â proceed();
>>>Â Â Â Â }
>>>Â Â }
>>>
>>> However, when enabling obfuscation in proguard, this results in log
>>> messages like:
>>>
>>> "mdc" : {
>>>Â Â "logging_aspect::method" : "void
>>>
>>> java.lang.ClassNotFoundException.onCreateConnectionChannelResponse(ClassNotFoundException,
>>> CreateConnectionChannelError, ConnectionStatus)",
>>>Â Â "logging_aspect::location" : "File.java:299"
>>> }
>>>
>>> I think there should be a way to access the Signature at the time of
>>> compilation. This would also be faster (?) than looking up classes
>>> during runtime.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> aspectj-users mailing list
>>> aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
>>> from this list, visit
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aspectj-users mailing list
>> aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from
>> this list, visit
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
> _______________________________________________
> aspectj-users mailing list
> aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users

_______________________________________________
aspectj-users mailing list
aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users