RE: [aspectwerkz-user] Hot deployment questions

Thanks Alex (and yes, I'll try using deployment scopes from now on ;-)). 

Could my comments below be taken into account to improve the
http://aspectwerkz.codehaus.org/dynamic_aop.html page?

Thanks
-Vincent

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexandre Vasseur [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: lundi 11 avril 2005 10:16
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [aspectwerkz-user] Hot deployment questions
> 
> In your case you were (as you understood) calling the deployer API
> before the actual classes that are affected by the aspects were
> exposed to the weaver ie loaded by the VM.
> 
> In that case, indeed, this seems to work but you can have side effect
> and thus you should see that as : configuring the load time weaving
> programmatically.
> 
> f.e. if you would write something like:
> 
> // want to hot deploy for Class Foo.class
> // lets write some silly log...
> out.println("Lets deploy to Foo.* " : + Foo.class.getName());
> iterate Foo.class.method to see which one is public
>    print the method name : print(..method[i].getName());
> // this silly log has actually trigger the class loading hence the
> class is loaded and this schema is not ready for hot deployment..
> 
> // now lets deploy
> Deployer.deploy(... .. to all public method of Foo.class)
> 
> // lets test
> ==> looks like not deployed at all...
> 
> Alex
> 
> 
> 
> On Apr 11, 2005 10:05 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Alexandre Vasseur [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: lundi 11 avril 2005 09:36
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: [aspectwerkz-user] Hot deployment questions
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > 1/ accessing the definition model to get the scope
> > > should be :
> > >  DeploymentScope scope =
> > > SystemDefinitionCONTAINER.getDefinitionFor(loader,
> > >  systemId).getDeploymentScope("toString");
> > > No new() - that would not do anything.
> >
> > Ok cool, then http://aspectwerkz.codehaus.org/dynamic_aop.html needs to
> be
> > fixed.
> >
> > BTW you mentioned last time that you would fix it to make it clear that
> > aop.xml was required. That said, I've found that it works without
> aop.xml
> > (at least in some cases), see below.
> >
> > Also, the "Deployment scopes" section is not clear where it says that
> the
> > scope can be defined in aop.xml or in an annotation:
> >
> > - The sentence " They are needed due to the fact that no JVMs today
> support
> > schema redefinition when redefining your classes." should be improved to
> > better explain what it means.
> >
> > - It should be more clearly stated whether defining the deployment scope
> in
> > the code also requires an aop.xml file or not.
> >
> > > 2/ aop.xml is mandatory in all cases
> >
> > My example works without an aop.xml file... :-) I'd really like to know
> when
> > an aop.xml file is required and when it isn't. It seems that if you
> don't
> > use a deployment scope it might not be required?
> >
> > > If the scope is defined as an annotation, ie in an aspect, then it is
> > > mandatory to declare the aspect in aop.xml
> >
> > Ok. I haven't tried this yet. This is should be clearly documented in
> > http://aspectwerkz.codehaus.org/dynamic_aop.html
> >
> > > > Thus it seems possible not to have anything defined in aop.xml. Thus
> > > > something like this would work, right?
> > > >
> > > > <aspectwerkz>
> > > >  <system id="cactus2"/>
> > > > </aspectwerkz>
> > > >
> > >
> > > No, won't work (nothing would be prepared for the scope to be further
> > > used)
> >
> > It did work but probably because I was not using a deployment scope and
> that
> > probably worked only because the hot deployment is done before my weaved
> are
> > loaded.
> >
> > So I think you're right in the general case where a deployment scope is
> > required, then an aop.xml file is required.
> >
> > > > 3/ Would it also work if I have a generic deployment scope such as:
> > > >
> > > > <aspectwerkz>
> > > >  <system id="cactus2">
> > > >    <deployment-scope name="allcode" expression="within(..)"/>
> > > >  </system>
> > > > </aspectwerkz>
> > > >
> > >
> > > 3/ generic scope is supported (and that s the motivation of it: allow
> > > deployment to a subset of that scope upon user/app needs but thus
> > > under control by the deployer)
> > > Yes, very generic scope should work. The idea there would be to deploy
> > > to a subset of this wide scope
> >
> > Ok, cool. Actually this syntax did not work but I'll try again with
> another
> > syntax.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Should we write a more comprehensice tutorial on that ?
> >
> > I think improving the http://aspectwerkz.codehaus.org/dynamic_aop.html
> page
> > would help a lot :-)
> >
> > It's a complex topic (with lots of options) and wherever I look
> > (documentation, blog posts, etc) there are lots of ambiguous statements.
> In
> > other words I was not able to find a single document that clearly
> described
> > all the possibilities and the required configuration.
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Vincent
> >
> >