public aspect Checker {
before(): get(* *) && !withincode(* get*(..)){
System.out.println(“checking…”);}
}
That is checking field-get join points not within getters. Other alternatives
would include cflow() or if() clauses using thisJoinPoint - but those would
both leave runtime checks in the code where the test above can be completely
statically determined.
(It isn’t verifying the field name matches the getter name - that’s where you
might be able to add an if() test or a check to your advice that compares
thisJoinPointStaticPart with thisEnclosingJoinPointStaticPart)
cheers,
Andy
> On Feb 20, 2015, at 7:03 AM, Tim Milstead <tmilst...@datagraphic.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I have some java beans I would like to secure using AspectJ. Like all beans
> the class has fields with matching setters and getters, e.g.
>
> public class Bean
> {
> private String value;
>
> public void setValue(String value)
> {
> this.value = value;
> }
>
> public String getValue(String value)
> {
> return value;
> }
> }
>
> I need to secure all read and write operations, e.g. for read I need to
> secure getValue() using an aspect, but I also need to secure the 'value'
> field directly. Is there away to avoid doing two checks on the get method
> aspect, i.e. one for the method call and one for the (nested) field mutation?
>
> Thanks for any help,
>
> Tim,
> _______________________________________________
> aspectj-users mailing list
> aspectj-users@eclipse.org <mailto:aspectj-users@eclipse.org>
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from
> this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
> <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users>
_______________________________________________
aspectj-users mailing list
aspectj-users@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from
this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
