Dude, this is fantastic. Makes me very happy to see the Elements API is getting exercised.
I was thinking of changing visitConstructor() on BindTargetVisitor to include the interceptors in the arguments list - what do you think? On Sep 22, 9:43 am, "Robbie Vanbrabant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I just hacked together a small utility that inspect your bindings and prints > out warnings when it finds "suspicious" AOP configurations, like: > - final methods that match a pattern > - private methods that match a pattern > - instance injection that matches a pattern > - static injection that matches a pattern > - interfaces or abstract classes that match a pattern > > Guice AOP (currently) silently ignores these cases (because of technical > limitations), so this is definitely something useful. > > I expect this code to be slow when you have tons of interceptor bindings. > From a theoretical perspective, it would be useful if the SPI could let us > visit AOP matches, and not just the interceptor bindings. > > Beyond that, there are also several more improvements possible to this code. > For example, the output is not as readable as it could be, and does not link > to its source bindings. When you have improvements, please do share them! > > Enjoy > Robbie > > ps: only works for explicit bindings, obviously > > aop-validation.zip > 3KViewDownload --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "google-guice" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-guice?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
