[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [ajdt-dev] ASM hierarchy model
|
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
