Thanks Dave and Ramnivas. yes I have progressed on the new intertype syntax, but a mountain of testing to do there. It is interesting about you (Dave) proposing the default be switched to non-mangling - I'm nervous about that (from a backwards compatibility point of view I think), but not entirely against it. Intertype fields are far far far far more straightforward than intertype methods, so that's where I'd play around first and that would seem to help a lot with these frameworks.
Andy 2009/11/20 Ramnivas Laddad <ramni...@aspectivity.com>: > I am all for this. Mangled names create problems with JPA and such. > I guess one issue to consider is what happens when two aspects want to > introduce a same-named field with a directive to not mangle, especially if > both aspects are from third-party libraries. This is quite unlikely to occur > in practice, but we may need to address it somehow. I wonder if the 'declare > precedence' can be an arbitrator here. > -Ramnivas > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Andy Clement <andrew.clem...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> I'm possibly going to review our approach to intertype declaration >> naming. The names are currently mangled deliberately to preserve some >> of the 'rules' that AspectJ defines. For example, private field itds >> have mangled names because the field is private to the aspect and >> shouldn't be visible as a 'regular' private field in the target. This >> also enables two aspects to ITD the same private field and there is no >> clash in the target type. >> >> However, since those rules were defined a long time ago, things have >> changed and various frameworks are looking at members via reflection, >> for purposes of invocation or automatic persistence. The mangling is >> unhelpful here. >> >> I *thinking* about allowing non-mangled names, possibly with a >> directive annotation in the aspect that says "do not mangle these, I >> know what I'm doing and there won't be a problem". >> >> Basically I wanted to collect any thoughts from you guys? >> >> I suspect that the some of the scenarios AspectJ worries about rarely >> happen in practice - have you ever ITD'd the same named private field >> from two aspects onto the same type? (AspectJ can continue to >> warn/error when it sees this about to happen of course) >> >> cheers, >> Andy >> _______________________________________________ >> aspectj-users mailing list >> aspectj-users@eclipse.org >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users > > > _______________________________________________ > aspectj-users mailing list > aspectj-users@eclipse.org > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users > > _______________________________________________ aspectj-users mailing list aspectj-users@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users