On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Andy Clement <andrew.clem...@gmail.com> wrote: >> As of 1.6.9, name mangling was supposed to go away. Is it still present >> when introducing fields into interfaces in the manner described above? I'm >> using 1.6.11 & still seeing name mangling, making persistence setup more >> difficult. > > Not quite, name mangling for a particular use case was supposed to go > away. That use case was ITD of fields onto classes, not onto > interfaces, they are rather distinct and the former is much more > straightforward than the latter. > I didn't realize.
> The interface case is covered by open bug > https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=73507 - looks like I > added a patch to it 5 years ago (yikes!) that partially addressed > things, leaving the mangled accessors around (getters/setters) but > leaving the name on the target interface implementor unmangled. I > wonder if applying that patch now might get you going, I'm presuming > you particularly care about the field name - the existence of the > mangled accessors is perhaps annoying but not causing a real problem? > Well, since for me I seem to be using ITDs a lot within domain models of persistent classes, I do care about the field name, primarily when defining persistent ORM metadata for the introduced fields. The mangled accessors don't really bother me too much. My use case is to introduce a default implementation of a particular interface while still allowing other manual or introduced implementations of the same interface. As such, I want it to look just like the class itself defined the interface, persistent fields intact so that they can be properly mapped to the datastore. -matthew _______________________________________________ aspectj-users mailing list aspectj-users@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
