Bizarre that you get the missing clinit message when AspectJ is the
only reason one got inserted... I wonder if there is something wrong
(maybe flags or something) about the clinit that it inserts in this
case. Could be worth raising an issue about:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/enter_bug.cgi?product=AspectJ
I guess if it isn't triggering when you expect you are probably just
going to avoid weaving annotations? (which also gets around this
problem)
cheers,
Andy
On 26 October 2012 06:49, Timothy Armstrong <tim.armstr...@gmx.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think you're probably right about the annotations. In the tests, I'm just
> mentioning them by name with their .class object, such as
> "myAnnotation.class". It's unfortunate the aspect doesn't trigger then, but
> I can work around it. There are hits on Google for 'is missing <clinit>',
> but only one for 'AspectJ "is missing <clinit>"'. I couldn't figure it out
> based on the hits. Yes, when I remove the staticinitialization aspect, it
> compiles. I'm compiling all the annotations from source, if that's what you
> mean.
>
> Thanks,
> Tim
>
>
>
> On 10/25/2012 08:21 PM, Andy Clement wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> You will only see your message when the static initializer runs. The
>> class may get loaded and used (to some degree) without that happening.
>> For example, here are some simple types:
>>
>> @Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
>> @interface Foo {
>> }
>>
>> public class Code {
>> @Foo
>> public static void main(String []argv) throws Exception {
>> }
>> }
>>
>> I can compile that and run 'Code' without the Foo static initializer
>> running.
>>
>> But if I change Code to do something with it, then we will see the
>> initializer running:
>>
>> public class Code {
>> @Foo
>> public static void main(String []argv) throws Exception {
>> Foo f =
>> Code.class.getDeclaredMethod("main",String[].class).getAnnotation(Foo.class);
>> }
>> }
>>
>> Can it be that some of your code just isn't exercising the annotations
>> enough to see their static initializers run?
>>
>> I've never seen the "is missing <clinit>" message before, but I see it
>> is classified as a bit odd:
>> https://forums.oracle.com/forums/thread.jspa?messageID=4824974
>>
>> I don't speak Maven very well - is AspectJ being used to build those
>> annotation types? (I'm not sure if you are building everything from
>> source or just weaving via a post compile step).
>>
>> If you remove your aspect the "is missing" messages all disappear?
>>
>> cheers,
>> Andy
>>
>> On 25 October 2012 08:24, Timothy Armstrong <tim.armstr...@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your replies. Yes, I get the same behavior when I put version
>>> 1.6.11 in the POM, just without the "bad version number" warning. I
>>> should
>>> have posted that version. I always get the "advice defined in ... has not
>>> been applied" warnings for the other aspects, but they still work. It
>>> does
>>> compile when I specify an annotation, such as
>>> "staticinitialization(@OWLClass *)". I posted the only lines in the POM
>>> having to do with AspectJ, so I don't know where else filters would be
>>> that
>>> ignore the test tree.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/25/2012 09:19 AM, Krzysztof Dębski wrote:
>>>>
>>>> aspectj-maven-plugin doesn't support aspectj 1.7
>>>>
>>>> see: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MASPECTJ-108
>>>>
>>>> Krzysztof Debski
>>>>
>>>> 2012/10/24 Romain MULLER <romain.mul...@esial.net>:
>>>>>
>>>>> I surely am no maven guru and I won't risk myself in trying to comment
>>>>> your POM. That said, on the Maven error, I think the following line
>>>>> could be of some relevance:
>>>>>
>>>>> [WARNING] bad version number found in
>>>>>
>>>>> /home/tim/.m2/repository/org/aspectj/aspectjrt/1.7.0/aspectjrt-1.7.0.jar
>>>>> expected 1.6.11 found 1.7.0
>>>>>
>>>>> This looks dodgy, I would try to arrange things so that this warning
>>>>> isn't produced anymore before digging any further on the maven errors.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the eclipse side, I'd recommend checking that your AspectJ compiler
>>>>> options don't have filters that get your test tree ignored by the
>>>>> compile-time weaver. I know it's kind of an "are you sure your
>>>>> computer is plugged to a power socket" check, but they very often give
>>>>> good results ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> _________________________
>>>>> Sent over RFC-1149 compliant transport - please excuse occasionnal
>>>>> packet
>>>>> loss
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 24 oct. 2012 à 22:08, Timothy Armstrong <tim.armstr...@gmx.com> a
>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> [WARNING] bad version number found in
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /home/tim/.m2/repository/org/aspectj/aspectjrt/1.7.0/aspectjrt-1.7.0.jar
>>>>>> expected 1.6.11 found 1.7.0
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> aspectj-users mailing list
>>>>> aspectj-users@eclipse.org
>>>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> aspectj-users mailing list
>>>> aspectj-users@eclipse.org
>>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> aspectj-users mailing list
>>> aspectj-users@eclipse.org
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aspectj-users mailing list
>> aspectj-users@eclipse.org
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aspectj-users mailing list
> aspectj-users@eclipse.org
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
_______________________________________________
aspectj-users mailing list
aspectj-users@eclipse.org
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
