[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [ajdt-dev] ASM hierarchy model
|
As experts may have seen, the around advice gets the straight icon
instead of the half circle one, or the one in the other direction.
I suspect the advice kind to be sort of unresolved, hence this default
icon. Mik, do you know where the advice kind (before / around etc) is
stored and resolved between the ASM model and AJDT. Is it done by name
so far, or is there some magic in the
IRpogramELement.ExtraInformation, or is that done in AJDT thru some
other way (Matt ?)
(see f.e. in AsmElementFormatter.genLabelAndKind)
Thanks
Alex
On 7/5/05, Mik Kersten <beatmik@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Excellent! That screenshot tells a really nice story about AJDT showing
> crosscutting consistently no matter what syntax you choose to declare it in
> :)
>
> Mik
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ajdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ajdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > On Behalf Of Alexandre Vasseur
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 4:52 AM
> > To: AspectJ Development Tools developer discussions
> > Subject: Re: [ajdt-dev] ASM hierarchy model
> >
> > Thanks so much Andy and Mik !
> >
> > I have added the offset info to MethodDeclarationAttribute. The point
> > is that I was grabbing this one from the line break information, hence
> > loosing the exact offset when reading the @Aj annotation in the
> > weaver, while ajdt core was having the correct one when dealing with
> > the ASM model.
> >
> > Here we go :
> > http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/avasseur/archives/001128_aspectj_in_ajdt_
> > a_world_premiere_.html
> >
> > Matt, can you tell me when the AspectJ ajde.jar from AspectJ build
> > snapshots will be in the AJDT build snapshots (for Eclipse 3.1) ?
> >
> > Alex
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/4/05, Mik Kersten <beatmik@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Seems like right now the simplest and most clear thing to do is to get
> > the
> > > offsets right for @AJ. Changing the equivalence matching makes sense,
> > but
> > > could get confusing to debug down the road, especially since we may want
> > to
> > > treat those declarations separately at one point (e.g. use Collections
> > can
> > > get confusing with a lenient equals method).
> > >
> > > Mik
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: ajdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ajdt-dev-
> > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > On Behalf Of Andrew Clement
> > > > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 7:02 AM
> > > > To: AspectJ Development Tools developer discussions
> > > > Subject: Re: [ajdt-dev] ASM hierarchy model
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >From a very quick look at the debug files - the gutter stuff is still
> > > > missing because the offsets don't match.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In the working case I can see this handle for a piece of advice:
> > > >
> > > > before(): <anonymous pointcut> [advice]
> > > > SingletonAspectBindingsTest2.aj:112::3677
> > > >
> > > > and then this relationship:
> > > >
> > > > Hid:2:(targets=1) SingletonAspectBindingsTest2.aj|112|0|3677 (advises)
> > > > SingletonAspectBindingsTest2.aj|45|0|1511
> > > >
> > > > ===
> > > >
> > > > In the failing case, I see this handle:
> > > >
> > > > before(JoinPoint.StaticPart): <anonymous pointcut> [advice]
> > > > SingletonAspectBindingsTest.java:113::3742
> > > >
> > > > and then this relationship:
> > > >
> > > > Hid:1:(targets=1) SingletonAspectBindingsTest.java|113|0|3777
> > (advises)
> > > > SingletonAspectBindingsTest.java|45|0|1509
> > > >
> > > > with different offsets there is no match. i.e. if I use the handle
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > advice (offset 3742) as an index into the relationships, it will
> > return
> > > > zero matching entries.
> > > >
> > > > Whether the fix is to get the offsets right for @AJ or make handle
> > > > equivalence testing more lenient, I'm not sure.
> > > >
> > > > Andy.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Alexandre Vasseur
> > > > <avasseur@gmail.c
> > > > om>
> > To
> > > > Sent by: AspectJ Development Tools
> > developer
> > > > ajdt-dev-bounces@ discussions <ajdt-
> > dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > eclipse.org
> > cc
> > > >
> > > >
> > Subject
> > > > 04/07/2005 14:35 Re: [ajdt-dev] ASM hierarchy
> > model
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Please respond to
> > > > Alexandre Vasseur
> > > > <avasseur@gmail.c
> > > > om>; Please
> > > > respond to
> > > > AspectJ
> > > > Development
> > > > Tools developer
> > > > discussions
> > > > <ajdt-dev@eclipse
> > > > .org>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Mik, I am not sure to follow.
> > > >
> > > > I have just commited in AspectJ a bunch of fix that makes the
> > > > AsmManager...setReporting happy when it encounters @AJ aspect. I had
> > > > no more luck with AJDT though (ie showWeaveInfo is fine but no gutter
> > > > or cross reference view appears)
> > > >
> > > > If you want to dig further what needs to perhaps be done in AspectJ,
> > > > you may check the "AtAjSyntaxTests.testSingletonAspectBindings()" that
> > > > runs some simple aspect written in both style (ie 2 run) and dump the
> > > > Asm model if you uncomment some lines.
> > > > I am also attaching the dump file if in any case you can spot
> > something
> > > > obvious.
> > > > debug-aj.txt is the one for code style, debug.txt is the one for
> > > > annotation style.
> > > >
> > > > Alex
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 6/29/05, Mik Kersten <beatmik@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > Good question. It definitely feels wrong for them to have the plain
> > > > Java
> > > > > kind, because the programmer and tools should treat them as advice.
> > But
> > > > > there will be cases where the fact that they're annotated as advice
> > > > needs
> > > > to
> > > > > be differentiated. Also, it is feasible that down the road we could
> > > > want
> > > > > the annotation to be a separate program element. I'm curious to see
> > how
> > > > the
> > > > > JDT's IJavaModel ends up handling annotations and am not aware of
> > any
> > > > > mechanism for going from a declaration to an annotation. Matt, do
> > you
> > > > know?
> > > > >
> > > > > For now I suggest adding an isAnnotated() method to IProgramElement
> > to
> > > > > indicate whether or not this advice/pointcut/etc. is specified as an
> > > > > annotation or as code. Then simply setting the kind to be the AOP
> > kind
> > > > not
> > > > > the OOP kind. Not that you may be tempted to put this method and
> > field
> > > > on
> > > > > the IProgramElement.Kind calss, which would be fine, but that
> > typesafe
> > > > enum
> > > > > pattern should be switched to a Java 5 enum at some point. If you
> > > > agree,
> > > > > and would like me to make the change just let me know.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mik
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: ajdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > [mailto:ajdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > > > On Behalf Of Alexandre Vasseur
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 7:59 AM
> > > > > > To: AspectJ Development Tools developer discussions
> > > > > > Subject: [ajdt-dev] ASM hierarchy model
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A question for Mik I guess.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For IDE support to work correctly, should the Hierarchy and
> > > > > > Relationship model output by the weaver have correct "kind" for
> > > > > > @AspectJ style member ie be flagged as
> > IProgramElement.Kind.Advice,
> > > > > > Aspect, Pointcut etc. ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > f.e. with
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SingletonAspectBindingsTest [class]
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > C:\Temp\ajcSandbox\ajcTest36518.tmp\ataspectj\SingletonAspectBindingsTest.
> > > > > > java:30::1063
> > > > > > TestAspect [aspect]
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > C:\Temp\ajcSandbox\ajcTest36518.tmp\ataspectj\SingletonAspectBindingsTest.
> > > > > > java:74::2495
> > > > > > s [field]
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > C:\Temp\ajcSandbox\ajcTest36518.tmp\ataspectj\SingletonAspectBindingsTest.
> > > > > > java:76::2530
> > > > > > ... [initializer]
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > C:\Temp\ajcSandbox\ajcTest36518.tmp\ataspectj\SingletonAspectBindingsTest.
> > > > > > java:78::2555
> > > > > > TestAspect() [constructor]
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > C:\Temp\ajcSandbox\ajcTest36518.tmp\ataspectj\SingletonAspectBindingsTest.
> > > > > > java:82::2604
> > > > > > aaround(ProceedingJoinPoint) [method]
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > C:\Temp\ajcSandbox\ajcTest36518.tmp\ataspectj\SingletonAspectBindingsTest.
> > > > > > java:90::2901
> > > > > > around2(ProceedingJoinPoint, Object) [method]
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > C:\Temp\ajcSandbox\ajcTest36518.tmp\ataspectj\SingletonAspectBindingsTest.
> > > > > > java:101::3273
> > > > > > before(JoinPoint.StaticPart) [advice]
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > C:\Temp\ajcSandbox\ajcTest36518.tmp\ataspectj\SingletonAspectBindingsTest.
> > > > > > java:113::3742
> > > > > > ....
> > > > > > === RELATIONSHIPS REPORT ========= After a batch build
> > > > > > Hid:1:(targets=1)
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > C:\Temp\ajcSandbox\ajcTest36518.tmp\ataspectj\SingletonAspectBindingsTest.
> > > > > > java|49|0|1568
> > > > > > (advised by)
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > C:\Temp\ajcSandbox\ajcTest36518.tmp\ataspectj\SingletonAspectBindingsTest.
> > > > > > java|128|0|4563
> > > > > > Hid:2:(targets=1)
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > C:\Temp\ajcSandbox\ajcTest36518.tmp\ataspectj\SingletonAspectBindingsTest.
> > > > > > java|90|0|2935
> > > > > > (advises)
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > C:\Temp\ajcSandbox\ajcTest36518.tmp\ataspectj\SingletonAspectBindingsTest.
> > > > > > java|45|0|1509
> > > > > > Hid:3:(targets=1)
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > C:\Temp\ajcSandbox\ajcTest36518.tmp\ataspectj\SingletonAspectBindingsTest.
> > > > > > java|101|0|3317
> > > > > > (advises)
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > C:\Temp\ajcSandbox\ajcTest36518.tmp\ataspectj\SingletonAspectBindingsTest.
> > > > > > java|45|0|1509
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > === Properties of the model and relationships map =====
> > > > > > method=13
> > > > > > import reference=19
> > > > > > aspect=1
> > > > > > constructor=1
> > > > > > class=2
> > > > > > advice=2
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > we can see that TestAspect.java is flagged to be an aspect.
> > > > > > Same for the method before, flagged to be an advice.
> > > > > > But since I am in the middle of doing some changes, you can see
> > that
> > > > > > aaround(..) are flagged as methods.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is AJDT supposed to work only from the advised-by / advises info
> > or
> > > > > > does this things matters ? (this because it means changing some in
> > the
> > > > > > ajdt.core to check if there are the @Aspect, @Before and so on
> > > > > > annotations).
> > > > > > (BTW with that, AJDT does not show up the markers and the cross
> > > > > > cutting structure better, despite the advised by is correct in the
> > > > > > problem view (when turned on).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > ajdt-dev mailing list
> > > > > > ajdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ajdt-dev
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > ajdt-dev mailing list
> > > > > ajdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ajdt-dev
> > > > >
> > > > (See attached file: debug.txt)(See attached file: debug-aj.txt)
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > ajdt-dev mailing list
> > > > ajdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ajdt-dev
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > ajdt-dev mailing list
> > > ajdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ajdt-dev
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ajdt-dev mailing list
> > ajdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ajdt-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> ajdt-dev mailing list
> ajdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ajdt-dev
>
