Simone, Obviously, I agree with your assessment that something is missing here.
Thanks for your proof of concept, I'll give it a look and see if it meets my needs, or if I should go with another approach. I have posted an enhancement request here: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=246413 ||------//~~~\\------==@<@>@==-----//~~~\\------|| || J a m e s E l l i o t t || || [EMAIL PROTECTED] || || || ||"Put yourself in their shoes before you || || decide on the best way to take their shirts."|| || -David Sklansky || ||------\\~~~//------==@<@>@==-----\\~~~//------|| On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Andy Clement <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I also stumbled upon this problem. In fact, I think AspectJ is missing >> something here. There should be a way to say after "the object has been >> completely initialized". > My initial reaction without thinking through all details is that I agree > there > is something missing. Feel free to raise an enhancement request to > discuss it. > > cheers, > Andy. > 2008/9/4 Simone Gianni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Hi all, >> I also stumbled upon this problem. In fact, I think AspectJ is missing >> something here. There should be a way to say after "the object has been >> completely initialized". That is because I might want to advice the >> constructor of an abstract class and call abstract methods, which will >> probably fail if the advice is executed after the abstract class >> constructor instead of after the concrete class constructor. Using the >> call instead of execution is a solution, but limited to the situation >> where the aspects are consistently applied, which could not be the case >> if I'm programming my own jar using AOP but then using it in a >> non-aspectj system. In fact, using "execution", AspectJ will add the >> code to my own classes, while using call requires the client code of my >> library to be weaved. >> >> Simone >> >> Andrew Eisenberg wrote: >> > Actually, it is the "call", not the "returning" that made it work. >> > Should probably work with or without the "returning" clause. >> > >> > In AspectJ, super calls are not considered "calls" and so are not >> > matched by the call designator, but the method bodies are executed, >> > hence they *are* matched by the execution designator. >> > >> > On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 8:25 PM, James Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Thanks a lot. Guess I never tried the "returning" keyword. >> >> >> >> Much appreciated. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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 >> > >> >> >> -- >> Simone Gianni >> http://www.simonegianni.it/ >> CEO Semeru s.r.l. >> Apache Committer >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
