[[implementation]]
= Implementation Notes

== Compiler Notes

The initial implementations of AspectJ have all been compiler-based
implementations. Certain elements of AspectJ's semantics are difficult
to implement without making modifications to the virtual machine, which
a compiler-based implementation cannot do. One way to deal with this
problem would be to specify only the behavior that is easiest to
implement. We have chosen a somewhat different approach, which is to
specify an ideal language semantics, as well as a clearly defined way in
which implementations are allowed to deviate from that semantics. This
makes it possible to develop conforming AspectJ implementations today,
while still making it clear what later, and presumably better,
implementations should do tomorrow.

According to the AspectJ language semantics, the declaration

[source, java]
....
before(): get(int Point.x) { System.out.println("got x"); }
....

should advise all accesses of a field of type `int` and name `x` from
instances of type (or subtype of) `Point`. It should do this regardless of
whether all the source code performing the access was available at the
time the aspect containing this advice was compiled, whether changes
were made later, etc.

But AspectJ implementations are permitted to deviate from this in a
well-defined way -- they are permitted to advise only accesses in _code
the implementation controls_. Each implementation is free within certain
bounds to provide its own definition of what it means to control code.

In the current AspectJ compiler, _ajc_, control of the code means having
bytecode for any aspects and all the code they should affect available
during the compile. This means that if some class `Client` contains code
with the expression `new Point().x` (which results in a field get join point at runtime), the
current AspectJ compiler will fail to advise that access, unless
`Client.java` or `Client.class` is compiled as well. It also means that join
points associated with code in native methods (including their execution
join points) cannot be advised.

Different join points have different requirements. Method and
constructor call join points can be advised only if _ajc_ controls the
bytecode for the caller. Field reference or assignment join points can
be advised only if _ajc_ controls the bytecode for the "caller", the code
actually making the reference or assignment. Initialization join points
can be advised only if _ajc_ controls the bytecode of the type being
initialized, and execution join points can be advised only if _ajc_
controls the bytecode for the method or constructor body in question.
The end of an exception handler is underdetermined in bytecode, so _ajc_
will not implement after or around advice on handler join points.
Similarly, _ajc_ cannot implement `around` advice on `initialization` or
`preinitialization` join points. In cases where _ajc_ cannot implement
advice, it will emit a compile-time error noting this as a compiler
limitation.

Aspects that are defined `perthis` or `pertarget` also have restrictions
based on control of the code. In particular, at a join point where the
bytecode for the currently executing object is not available, an aspect
defined `perthis` of that join point will not be associated. So aspects
defined `perthis(Object)` will not create aspect instances for every
object unless `Object` is part of the compile. Similar restrictions apply
to `pertarget` aspects.

Inter-type declarations such as `declare parents` also have restrictions
based on control of the code. If the bytecode for the target of an
inter-type declaration is not available, then the inter-type declaration
is not made on that target. So, `declare parents : String implements MyInterface`
will not work for `java.lang.String`, unless `java.lang.String` is part of the compile.

When declaring members on interfaces, the implementation must control
both the interface and the top-level implementors of that interface (the
classes that implement the interface but do not have a superclass that
implements the interface). You may weave these separately, but be aware
that you will get runtime exceptions if you run the affected top-level
classes without the interface as produced by the same _ajc_
implementation. Any intertype declaration of an `abstract` method on an
interface must be specified as `public`, you will get a compile time error
message indicating this is a compiler limitation if you do not specify
`public`. A non-`abstract` method declared on an interface can use any
access modifier except protected. Note that this is different to normal
Java rules where all members declared in an interface are implicitly
`public`. Finally, note that one cannot define `static` fields or methods on
interfaces.

When declaring methods on target types, only methods declared `public` are
recognizable in the bytecode, so methods must be declared `public` to be
overridden in any subtype or to be called from code in a later compile
using the target type as a library.

Other AspectJ implementations, indeed, future versions of _ajc_, may
define _code the implementation controls_ more liberally or
restrictively, so long as they comport with the Java language. For
example, the `call` pointcut does not pick out reflective calls to a
method implemented in
`java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Object, Object[])`. Some suggest that
the call "happens" and the call pointcut should pick it out, but the
AspectJ language shouldn't anticipate what happens in code outside the
control of the implementation, even when it is a well-defined API in a
Java standard library.

The important thing to remember is that core concepts of AspectJ, such
as the join point, are unchanged, regardless of which implementation is
used. During your development, you will have to be aware of the
limitations of the _ajc_ compiler you're using, but these limitations
should not drive the design of your aspects.

== Bytecode Notes

[[the-class-expression-and-string-plus]]
=== The `.class` expression and `String` `+`

The java language form `Foo.class` is implemented in bytecode with a
call to `Class.forName` guarded by an exception handler catching a
`ClassNotFoundException`.

The java language `+` operator, when applied to `String` arguments, is
implemented in bytecode by calls to `StringBuffer.append`.

In both of these cases, the current AspectJ compiler operates on the
bytecode implementation of these language features; in short, it
operates on what is really happening rather than what was written in
source code. This means that there may be call join points to
`Class.forName` or `StringBuffer.append` from programs that do not, at
first glance, appear to contain such calls:

[source, java]
....
class Test {
  void main(String[] args) {
    System.out.println(Test.class);         // calls Class.forName
    System.out.println(args[0] + args[1]);  // calls StringBuffer.append
  }
}
....

In short, the join point model of the current AspectJ compiler considers
these as valid join points.

=== The `handler()` join point

The end of exception handlers cannot reliably be found in Java bytecode.
Instead of removing the `handler` join point entirely, the current AspectJ
compiler restricts what can be done with the `handler` join point:

* `after` and `around` advice cannot apply to `handler` join points.
* The control flow of a `handler` join point cannot be detected.

The first of these is relatively straightforward. If any piece of `after`
advice (returning, throwing, or "finally") would normally apply to a
`handler` join point, it will not in code output by the current AspectJ
compiler. A compiler warning is generated, whenever this is detected to
be the case. `before` advice is allowed.

The second is that the control flow of a `handler` join point is not
picked out. For example, the following pointcut

[source, java]
....
cflow(call(void foo()) || handler(java.io.IOException))
....

will capture all join points in the control flow of a call to
`void foo()`, but it will _not_ capture those in the control flow of an
`IOException` handler. It is equivalent to `cflow(call(void foo()))`. In
general, `cflow(handler(Type))` will not pick out any join points, the
one exception to this is join points that occur during the execution of
any before advice on the handler.

This does not restrict programs from placing before advice on handlers
inside _other_ control flows. This advice, for example, is perfectly
fine:

[source, java]
....
before(): handler(java.io.IOException) && cflow(void parse()) {
  System.out.println("about to handle an exception while parsing");
}
....

A source-code implementation of AspectJ (such as AspectJ 1.0.6) is able
to detect the endpoint of a handler join point, and as such will likely
have fewer such restrictions.

=== Initializers and Inter-type Constructors

The code for Java initializers, such as the assignment to the field `d` in

[source, java]
....
class C {
  double d = Math.sqrt(2);
}
....

are considered part of constructors by the time AspectJ gets ahold of
bytecode. That is, the assignment of `d` to the square root of two happens
_inside_ the default constructor of `C`.

Thus inter-type constructors will not necessarily run a target type's
initialization code. In particular, if the inter-type constructor calls
a super-constructor (as opposed to a `this` constructor), the target
type's initialization code will _not_ be run when that inter-type
constructor is called.

[source, java]
....
aspect A {
  C.new(Object o) {}  // implicitly calls super()

  public static void main(String[] args) {
    System.out.println((new C()    ).d);  // prints 1.414...
    System.out.println((new C(null)).d);  // prints 0.0
  }
}
....

It is the job of an inter-type constructor to do all the required
initialization, or to delegate to a `this` constructor if necessary.

== Annotation-style Notes

Writing aspects in annotation-style is subject to the same bytecode
limitations since the binary aspects take the same form and are woven in
the same way. However, the implementation differences (e.g., the
mechanism for implementing `around` advice) may be apparent at runtime.
See the documentation on annotation-style for more information.

== Summary of implementation requirements

This summarizes the requirements of our implementation of AspectJ. For
more details, see the relevant sections of this guide.

* The invoking code must be under the control of _ajc_ for the following
join points:
** `call` join point
** `get` join point
** `set` join point
* The declaring/target code must be under the control of _ajc_ for the
following join points and inter-type declarations:
** `execution` join point
** `adviceexecution` join point
** `handler` join point
** `initialization` join point
** `preinitialiaztion` join point
** `staticinitialization` join point
** `perthis` aspect
** `pertarget` aspect
** `declare _parents_`
** `declare _method_ | _field_` (see interface caveats below)
* Implementation Caveats
** The `initialization` and `preinitialization` join points do not support
`around` advice
** The `handler` join point does not support...
*** `after advice`
*** `around` advice
*** `cflow(handler(..))`
** Declaring members on an interface in an aspect affects only the
topmost implementing classes the implementation controls.
** `cflow` and `cflowbelow` pointcuts work within a single thread.
** Runtime `ClassCastException` may result from supplying a supertype of
the actual type as an argument to `proceed(..)` in `around` advice.
