I think you're right. After modifying my pointcuts I do not seem to have the tangle anymore.
I've not added A as aspectpath to B, I've added A as a dependency in the manifest. Perhaps aspectpath is a better way to go about? About the inpath, are you saying that I should put the (bin folders of the) project (let's call it C) which I'd like to be woven by B as inpath for B? Right now I'm putting the bin folders of B (and A) as inpath for C. It seems to work in my Eclipse development environment (how ever I still don't get it to work when I deploy everything to a clean Eclipse installation). Thanks for your help. On Nov 29, 2007 3:47 PM, Andy Clement <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > inpath is code that will be subject to weaving, aspectpath is code > that is input to the weaving process but should not be woven. I could > imagine A on the aspectpath for B so that it can reference aspects on > it (concretize them). > > references from A to B.aspectOf() suggest to me that you have > accidentally woven A in the pointcuts/advice you are using? > > Andy. > > > On 29/11/2007, Johan Haleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > B has A added to its manifest file as a Required Plugin whereas A has no > > dependency to B in its manifest file. Both A & B are added as binary > inpath > > to the AspectJified projects which should be woven by the aspect(s). Is > it > > perhaps enough to add B to the inpath? > > > > Structure 101 reports the following: > > From Usage To > > A.<init> references .B > > A.<init> calls .B.aspectOf > > A.formatJoinPoint references .B > > A.formatJoinPoint calls .B.aspectOf > > A.logWarning references .B > > A.logWarning calls .B.aspectOf > > > > (I have of course renamed the aspects to A & B in my mail) > > > > > > > > On Nov 29, 2007 2:12 PM, Andy Clement <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Are you simply using project dependencies so that B can see A? Or > > > aspectpath? Or inpath? > > > > > > I cannot see a reason for A to reference B unless you have explicitly > > > directly mentioned the types of B in your abstract aspect. If you > > > supply more information, maybe we can work out why > > > > > > Andy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 29/11/2007, Johan Haleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I have two aspects and one of them is abstract (A) and the other one > (B) > > > > extends A and and provides the concrete implementation. A & B are in > two > > > > separate projects. When I examine my project in Structure 101 it > says > > that I > > > > have a package tangle between A & B. It seems like A is referencing > and > > > > calling B and B must obviously know of A since it extends it. Is > this > > the > > > > correct behavior? It's sad that you have to live with an extra > tangle > > that I > > > > can do nothing about. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Johan > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > aspectj-users mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > aspectj-users mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > aspectj-users mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users > > > > > _______________________________________________ > aspectj-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users >
_______________________________________________ aspectj-users mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
