[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
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
>
