Hi all, I personally did not spend time on thinking about it, but it looks strange to me at a first glance. Is this 'just' an optimisation, in the cases where you are using an around advice without a proceed? If not, I think we need a compelling example at least.
Plus, of course, you get the problems that you might remove stuff that is actually needed somewhere. Just my 2c. On 24 Jun 2011, at 12:38, Andy Clement wrote: > I see, so we are already talking about entirely different > mechanisms... this is definetly not something to rush. I was > imagining a construct similar to a field ITD that removed the named > field rather than adding it, but you are talking about some variant of > advice for this. A kind of field set/get joinpoint around advice > where the field is removed as part of being advised, sounds a bit > scary. Definetly needs more thought. I wonder if any readers of the > list from academia have spent time thinking about using AOP for > removal of program pieces? (anyone?) > > This is why I went ahead with annotation removal, it is much more simple. > > cheers > Andy -- Johan Fabry [email protected] - http://dcc.uchile.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD Lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile _______________________________________________ aspectj-users mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
