Re: Compile-time targets for proceed() calls in around advice?
Eric Bodden <[email protected]> Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:28:56 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.programming.aspect.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi again. I think your analysis is almost correct, except for the case where you have multiple aspects applying to the same joinpoint. Because then a proceed() may actually call another aspect's advice. Eric -- Dr. Eric Bodden Software Technology Group, Technische Universit=E4t Darmstadt, Germany Tel: +49 6151 16-5478=A0 =A0 Fax: +49 6151 16-5410 Mailing Address: S2|02 A209, Hochschulstra=DFe 10, 64289 Darmstadt On 21 July 2010 12:00, Raffi Khatchadourian <[email protected]> w= rote: > Hi Eric, > > Thanks for the info! Actually, I kinda realized that this was a silly que= stion after I asked it. Basically, if you know the join point shadows that = are being selected by the bound pointcut, to find the compile-time targets,= all you need to do is follow those join points. For method execution join = points, the join point shadows are the compile-time targets for the proceed= () call. For method call join points, on the other hand, the compile-time t= arget of the method being called at the call join point is the compile-time= target for the proceed() call. Thus, it takes and additional step in the m= ethod call join point case. Thanks again for the help! > > Raffi > > On Jul 21, 2010, at 5:45 PM, Eric Bodden wrote: > >> Hi Raffi. >> >> You could check out the source code of abc (www.aspectbench.org). I >> don't know how things work there w.r.t. proceed but it must work >> somehow :-) >> >> Eric >> >> -- >> Dr. Eric Bodden >> Software Technology Group, Technische Universit=E4t Darmstadt, Germany >> Tel: +49 6151 16-5478 =A0 =A0Fax: +49 6151 16-5410 >> Mailing Address: S2|02 A209, Hochschulstra=DFe 10, 64289 Darmstadt >> >> >> >> On 21 July 2010 10:09, Raffi Khatchadourian <[email protected]= > wrote: >>> Hello all, >>> >>> Can anyone direct me to work on resolving compile-time targets for proc= eed() calls in around advice? To be more specific, I am looking for existin= g work that determines the set of methods that may be substituted for a pro= ceed() call in an around advice body. Thanks! >>> >>> Raffi Khatchadourian >>> >>> Visiting Graduate Researcher >>> Programming Principles and Practices Group >>> Department of Graphics and Computer Science >>> Graduate School of Arts and Sciences >>> University of Tokyo, Japan >>> [email protected] >>> >>> PhD Candidate >>> Department of Computer Science & Engineering >>> Ohio State University, USA >>> http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~khatchad >>> _______________________________________________ >>> discuss mailing list =A0 =A0- =A0 [email protected] >>> >>> To unsubscribe and change options, go to: >>> http://aosd.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss_aosd.net >>> >>> Check out the AOSD.net Wiki: http://aosd.net/wiki >>> > > _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe and change options, go to: http://aosd.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss_aosd.net Check out the AOSD.net Wiki: http://aosd.net/wiki