possibly (4) ought to work, but I think what you have with 5 is a clearer way to express things. Raise a bug for (4) if you want me to look into it in detail.
Andy On 30 June 2010 14:36, Rizal Anwar <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > Let's imagine I have two following annotations : > public @interface XAnnotation { > int xid() default 0; > } > public @interface YAnnotation { > int yid() default 0; > } > This works fine: > (1) pointcut myPointcut(): execution( @XAnnotation(xid = 2) * *(..)) ; > (2) So does this: > pointcut myPointcut(): execution( @YAnnotation * *(..)) ; > (3) So does this: > pointcut myPointcut(): execution( @(XAnnotation || YAnnotation) * *(..)) ; > But, I don't manage to make this one: > (4) pointcut myPointcut(): execution( @(XAnnotation(xid = 2) || > YAnnotation(yid=3)) * *(..)) ; > I use this as workaround though: > (5) pointcut myPointcut1(): execution( @XAnnotation(xid = 2) * *(..)) ; > pointcut myPointcut2(): execution( @YAnnotation(yid=3) * *(..)) ; > pointcut myPointcut3(): myPointcut1() || myPointcut2(); > Is (4) not supported or do I miss something in writing the pointcut ? > Thanks, > Anwar. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
