RE: some questions about the 0.3 / 0.4 codeline

Neat.

That serves mainly as an identifier of what "class" the instance belongs
to. Don't you have a mixin that also has this interface as interface? If
not what target implements the interface passed in as identifier?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:nanning-
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Conover
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 2:12 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Nanning-developer] some questions about the 0.3 / 0.4
> codeline
> 
> I've been doing some converting today to MixinAspects (I really like
> the new config system, very clean).  My AspectFactory returns an
> AspectInstance from the newInstance(class) method.
> 
> I do an AspectInstance.getProxy() and try to cast it to the interface
> class I fed into the AspectInstance constructor, but I get a
> classcastexception.  I notice in the code to construct a proxy the
only
> interfaces fed into the Proxy.newProxyInstance are from the mixins.
> 
> Why isn't the interface class I passed into the AspectInstance
> constrctor also included?
> 
> Regards,
> Steve
> 
> --- Jon Tirsen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Yeah, you should probably try to move away from the
> > c.t.n.definition-classes. The AspectInstance/MixinInstance has a
> > similar
> > API although you'll find it to be more flexible. The main difference
> > is
> > that you'll need to create a new AspectInstance for every instance
> > you
> > create and then invoke getProxy() to get the proxy for this instance
> > only. But I guess you've got a factory somewhere where this is done
> > in a
> > central place (if not, I suggest you do that :-).
> >
> > The new c.t.n.config-stuff is not really ready and a lot of things
> > will
> > probably happen there. The main purpose is to have
Aspect/J-semantics
> > in
> > Nanning where cross-cutting concerns are truly modular, ie. mixins
> > and
> > interceptors are tied together into a single aspect. There's a
> > description about it here:
> >
>
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=1621907&forum_id=
> > 12937
> >
> > I'm using it myself and it's very powerful, but it's not very
> > well-documented and kind of weird sometimes. If you want to use it I
> > can
> > answer questions you may have.
> >
> > (c.t.n.definition-classes is in fact implemented on top of the
> > AspectInstance stuff.)
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email protected]
> > [mailto:nanning-
> > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Conover
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 10:55 PM
> > > To: nanning-developer
> > > Subject: [Nanning-developer] some questions about the 0.3 / 0.4
> > codeline
> > >
> > > Jon,
> > >
> > > I'm just integrating the 0.4 codeline into my project, and had a
> > few
> > > questions.
> > >
> > > My aspects are still working due to this code in
> > > AspectDefinition.checkObject:
> > >
> > > if (target == null) {
> > >             return;
> > >         }
> > >
> > > However I still would like to provide a target that doesn't
> > implement
> > > the interfaceClass, as we discussed earlier.  That's not really
> > > possible via the AspectDefinition.
> > >
> > > I remember you said something about extending MixinInstance (which
> > I
> > > notice is final).  However I guess I haven't been keeping up with
> > > changes very well - what are the purposes of these new config
> > classes
> > > (Pointcut, Advise, MixinAspect, etc)?
> > >
> > > I'm defining these AspectDefinitions, and then building up an
> > > AspectClass and instanciating that to create my objects.  Should I
> > be
> > > moving this stuff to MixinXXX?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Steve
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> > > Welcome to geek heaven.
> > > http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Nanning-developer mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nanning-developer
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> > Welcome to geek heaven.
> > http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> > _______________________________________________
> > Nanning-developer mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nanning-developer
> 
> 
> =====
> *****************
> Steve Conover Jr.
> 
> Verify chainmail here: http://www.snopes.com
> *****************
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Nanning-developer mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nanning-developer



-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf