Re: [aspectj-users] Possible AJ change: Read this if you use package (de

[Bo Yi <boyi@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I vote for package level visibility.

If an abstract ITD has to be public
as one of the proposals in Bug Report 72834, we would have to enforce all
its subclasses to implement this abstract method. Otherwise, one can use
introspective reflect to get the Method object and invoke it on its subclass.
But that method may not be overridden (implemented) in the subclass at
all.

If it is declared at package level,
other classes can not invoke the Method even though it may be able to get
its signature.

Regards,

Bo
----------------------------------------------------------
  Dr. Bo Yi
  WebSphere Development & Testing
  IBM Toronto Lab 
  A2-713/Q2Z/8200/MKM
  8200 Warden Ave. Markham ONT. L6G 1C7
  Phone: 905-413-4819 
  Tie Line: 969-4819
  E-Mail: boyi@xxxxxxxxxx

Charles Zhang <zhangcharles@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: aspectj-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

09/30/2005 01:03 PM

Please respond to
aspectj-users

To	Andy Clement <andrew.clement@xxxxxxxxx>, aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject	Re: [aspectj-users] Possible AJ change: Read this if you use package        (default) visible abstract ITDs?

>From my (a user) point of view, our projects do
find
package level visibility useful. That is, we introduce
methods or fields only visible in aspect packages.
They cannot be "pulic" since it will "leak" the
concern to the "outside". They cannot be private
because we want other non-child aspects in the same
package to know about them. So I vote "no" for making
it an error, if I didn't misunderstand the issue. 

Charles

--- Andy Clement <andrew.clement@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> There are a few bugs around to do with abstract ITDs
> that have package
> level visibility.  I mean something like:
> 
> abstract class A { }
> 
> aspect X {
>   abstract void A.foo();
> }
> 
> There is a lot of discussion about the problems they
> introduce in bug 72834:
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=72834
> 
> I'm proposing to make it an error, depending on any
> feedback I get
> here, so that you can't 'specify' default visibility
> for abstract
> ITDs.
> 
> comments? use cases?
> 
> Andy.
> _______________________________________________
> aspectj-users mailing list
> aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
> 


Yawn !!
_______________________________________________
aspectj-users mailing list
aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users