Re: Compile-time targets for proceed() calls in around advice?

Hi Eric,

Yes, thanks for pointing that out. However, if we accept that calling proce=
ed may actually call another aspect's (or even the same aspect's) advice, t=
hen would we also say that the true target of a method that is advised is t=
he advice and not the method? Personally, I think that the method being adv=
ised should be considered the target, regardless if advice is applied. Than=
ks again for the help!

Raffi

On Jul 21, 2010, at 8:28 PM, Eric Bodden wrote:

> 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    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]>=
 wrote:
>> Hi Eric,
>> =

>> Thanks for the info! Actually, I kinda realized that this was a silly qu=
estion 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 procee=
d() call. For method call join points, on the other hand, the compile-time =
target of the method being called at the call join point is the compile-tim=
e target for the proceed() call. Thus, it takes and additional step in the =
method 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    Fax: +49 6151 16-5410
>>> Mailing Address: S2|02 A209, Hochschulstra=DFe 10, 64289 Darmstadt
>>> =

>>> =

>>> =

>>> On 21 July 2010 10:09, Raffi Khatchadourian <[email protected]=
u> wrote:
>>>> Hello all,
>>>> =

>>>> Can anyone direct me to work on resolving compile-time targets for pro=
ceed() calls in around advice? To be more specific, I am looking for existi=
ng work that determines the set of methods that may be substituted for a pr=
oceed() 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    -    [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