[[readme-1_1]]
= AspectJ 1.1

_© Copyright 2002 Palo Alto Research Center, Incorporated, 2003
Contributors. All rights reserved._

This is the initial release of AspectJ 1.1. It includes a small number
of new language features as well as major improvements to the
functionality of the tools.

This document describes the differences between AspectJ versions 1.1 and
1.0.6. Users new to AspectJ need only read the
link:progguide/index.html[AspectJ Programming Guide] since it describes
the 1.1 language. Users familiar with AspectJ 1.0 may find this document
a quicker way to learn what changed in the language and tools, and
should use it as a guide for porting programs from 1.0 to 1.1.

This document first summarizes changes from the 1.0 release in

* xref:#language[the language],
* xref:#compiler[the compiler],
* xref:#tools[the support tools],
* xref:#runtime[the runtime],
* xref:#devenv[the development environment support],
* xref:#sources[the sources], and
* xref:#distribution[the distribution],

then xref:#details[details] some of the language and compiler changes,
and finally points readers to the bug database for any
xref:#knownLimitations[known limitations].

'''''

[[language]]
== The Language

AspectJ 1.1 is a slightly different language than AspectJ 1.0. In all
but a few cases, programs written in AspectJ 1.0 should compile
correctly in AspectJ 1.1. In many cases, there are new or preferred
forms in AspectJ 1.1. However, some AspectJ 1.0 features have changed in
1.1, so some 1.0 programs will not compile or will run differently in
1.1. The corresponding features are marked below as compile-time or
run-time incompatible (_CTI_ or _RTI_, respectively). When the language
change involves a move in the static shadow effective at run-time but
also apparent at compile-time (e.g., in declare error or warning
statements), it is marked _CRTI_. Programs using run-time incompatible
forms should be verified that they are behaving as expected in 1.1.

Most changes to the language are additions to expressibility requested
by our users:

* xref:#THROWS_PATTERN[Matching based on throws]: You can now make finer
discriminations between methods based on declared exceptions.
* xref:#NEW_PCDS[New kinded pointcut designators]: Now every kind of
join point has a corresponding kinded pointcut designator.

Some are have different behavior in edge cases but offer improved power
and clarity:

* xref:#ASPECT_PRECEDENCE[New aspect precedence form]: AspectJ 1.1 has a
new declare form, `declare     precedence`, that replaces the
"dominates" clause on aspects. (_CTI_)
* The order of xref:#SUPER_IFACE_INITS[initialization join points for
super-interfaces] has been clarified. (_RTI_)

But in order to support weaving into bytecode effectively, several
incompatible changes had to be made to the language:

* A class's default constructor may
xref:#DEFAULT_CONSTRUCTOR_CONFLICT[conflict] with an inter-type
constructor. (_CTI_)
* xref:#NO_CALLEE_SIDE_CALL[No callee-side call join points]: The
AspectJ 1.1 compiler does not expose call join points unless it is given
the calling code. (_CRTI_)
* xref:#SINGLE_INTERCLASS_TARGET[One target for intertype declarations].
(_CTI_)
* xref:#UNAVAILABLE_JOIN_POINTS[No initializer execution join points].
(_RTI_)
* xref:#AFTER_HANDLER[No after or around advice on handler join points].
(_CTI_)
* xref:#CONSTRUCTOR_EXECUTION_IS_BIGGER[Initializers run inside
constructor execution join points]. (_RTI_)
* xref:#INTER_TYPE_FIELD_INITIALIZERS[inter-type field initializers] run
before class-local field initializers. (_RTI_)
* xref:#WITHIN_MEMBER_TYPES[Small limitations of the within pointcut.]
(_CRTI_)
* xref:#WITHIN_CODE[Small limitations of the withincode pointcut.]
(_CRTI_)
* xref:#INSTANCEOF_ON_WILD[Can't do instanceof matching on type patterns
with wildcards]. (_CTI_)
* xref:#NO_SOURCE_COLUMN[SourceLocation.getColumn() is deprecated and
will always return 0]. (_RTI_)
* The interaction between aspect instantiation and advice has been
xref:#ASPECT_INSTANTIATION_AND_ADVICE[clarified]. (_RTI_)
* xref:#STRINGBUFFER[The String + operator is now correctly advised].
(_CRTI_)

[#NEW_LIMITATIONS]#There# are a couple of language limitations for
things that are rarely used that make the implementation simpler, so we
have restricted the language accordingly.

* xref:#VOID_FIELD_SET[Field set join points now have a `void` return
type.] This will require porting of code that uses the `set` PCD in
conjunction with after-returning or around advice. (_CTI_)
* 'declare soft: TYPE: POINTCUT;' - AspectJ 1.1 only accepts TYPE rather
than a TYPE_PATTERN. This limitation makes declare soft much easier to
implement efficiently. (_CTI_)
* Inter-type field declarations only allow a single field per line, i.e.
this is now illegal 'int C.field1, D.field2;' This must instead be, 'int
C.field1; int D.field2;' (_CTI_)
* We did not implement the handling of more than one `..` wildcard in
args PCD's (rarely encountered in the wild) because we didn't have the
time. This might be available in later releases if there is significant
outcry. (_CTI_)

We did not implement the long-awaited xref:#PER_TYPE[new pertype aspect
specifier] in this release, but it may well be in a future release.

'''''

[[compiler]]
== The Compiler

The compiler for AspectJ 1.1 is different than the compiler for AspectJ
1.0. While this document describes the differences in the compiler, it's
worthwhile noting that much effort has been made to make sure that the
interface to ajc 1.1 is, as much as possible, the same as the interface
to ajc 1.0. There are two important changes under the hood, however.

First, the 1.1 compiler is implemented on top of the open-source Eclipse
compiler. This has two benefits: It allows us to concentrate on the
AspectJ extensions to Java and let the Eclipse team worry about making
sure the Java edge cases work, and it allows us to piggyback on
Eclipse's already mature incremental compilation facilities.

Second, ajc now cleanly delineates compilation of source code from
assembly (or "weaving") of bytecode. The compiler still accepts source
code, but internally it transforms it into bytecode format before
weaving.

This new architecture, and other changes to the compiler, allows us to
implement some features that were defined in the AspectJ 1.0 language
but not implementable in the 1.1 compiler. It also makes some new
features available:

* xref:#SOURCEROOT[The -sourceroots option] takes one or more
directories, and indicates that all the source files in those
directories should be passed to the compiler.
* xref:#BYTECODE_WEAVING[The -injars option] takes one or more jar
files, and indicates that all the classfiles in the jar files should be
woven into.
* xref:#BINARY_ASPECTS[The -aspectpath option] takes one or more jar
files, and weaves any aspects in .class form into the sources.
* xref:#OUTJAR[The -outjar option] indicates that the result classfiles
of compiling and weaving should be placed in the specified jar file.
* xref:#XLINT[The -Xlint option] allows control over warnings.
* xref:#OTHER_X_OPTIONS[Various -X options] changed.
* xref:#INCREMENTAL[The -incremental option] tells the AspectJ 1.1
compiler to recompile only as necessary.

Some other features we wanted to support for 1.1, but did not make it
into this release:

* xref:#ERROR_MESSAGES[Error messages will sometimes be scary]
* xref:#MESSAGE_CONTEXT[Source code context is not shown for errors and
warnings detected during bytecode weaving]

But some features of the 1.0 compiler are not supported in the 1.1
compiler:

* xref:#NO_SOURCE[The source-related options] -preprocess, -usejavac,
-nocomment and -workingdir
* xref:#NO_STRICT_LENIENT[The -strict and -lenient options]
* xref:#NO_PORTING[The -porting option]
* xref:#_13_REQUIRED[J2SE 1.2 is not supported; J2SE 1.3 or later is
required.]

A short description of the options ajc accepts is available with
"`ajc -help`". Longer descriptions are available in the
link:devguide/ajc-ref.html[Development Environment Guide section on
ajc].

Some changes to the implementation are almost entirely internal:

* The behavior of the compiler in xref:#TARGET_TYPES_MADE_PUBLIC[lifting
the visibility] of the target types of some declares and pointcuts to
public has been clarified.

Also, it is worth noting that because AspectJ now works on bytecode, it
is somewhat sensitive to how different compilers generate bytecode,
especially when compiling with and without
xref:#ONE_FOUR_METHOD_SIGNATURES[the -1.4 flag].

'''''

[[tools]]
== Support Tools

This release includes an Ant task for old-style 1.0 build scripts, a new
task for all the new compiler options, and a CompilerAdapter to support
running `ajc` with the Javac task by setting the `build.compiler`
property. The new task can automatically copy input resources to output
and work in incremental mode using a "tag" file.

This release does not include `ajdoc`, the documentation tool for
AspectJ sources. Ajdoc is deeply dependent on the abstract syntax tree
classes from the old compiler, so it needs a bottom-up rewrite. We think
it best to use this opportunity to implement more general API's for
publishing and rendering static structure. Because those API's are last
to settle in the new architecture, and because the compiler itself is a
higher priority, we are delaying work on ajdoc until after the 1.1
release.

AspectJ 1.1 will not include ajdb, the AspectJ stand-alone debugger. It
is no longer necessary for two reasons. First, the -XnoInline flag will
tell the compiler to generate code without inlining that should work
correctly with any Java debugger. For code generated with inlining
enabled, more third-party debuggers are starting to work according to
JSR 45, "Debugging support for other languages," which is supported by
AspectJ 1.0. We aim to support JSR-45 in AspectJ 1.1, but support will
not be in the initial release. Consider using the -XnoInline flag until
support is available.

'''''

[[runtime]]
== The Runtime Library

This release has minor additions to the runtime library classes. As with
any release, you should compile and run with the runtime library that
came with your compiler, and you may run with a later version of the
library without recompiling your code.

In one instance, however, runtime classes behave differently this
release. Because the AspectJ 1.1 compiler does its weaving through
bytecode, column numbers of source locations are not available.
Therefore, `thisJoinPoint.getSourceLocation().getColumn()` is deprecated
and will always return 0.

'''''

[[devenv]]
== The AJDE Tools

The AspectJ Browser supports incremental compilation and running
programs. AJDE for JBuilder, AJDE for NetBeans, and AJDE for Emacs are
now independent SourceForge projects (to keep their licenses). They use
the batch-build mode of the new compiler.

'''''

[[sources]]
== The Sources and the Licenses

The AspectJ tools sources are available under the
https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-2.0/EPL-2.0.txt[Eclipse Public
License v 2.0] in the Git repository at https://eclipse.org/aspectj. For
more information, see the FAQ entry on building sources.

'''''

[[distribution]]
== The AspectJ distribution

AspectJ 1.0 had many distributions - for the tools, the documentation,
each IDE support package, their respective sources, and the Ant tasks -
because they came under different licenses. All of AspectJ 1.1 is
licensed under the CPL 1.0, so the tools, Ant tasks, and documentation
are all in one distribution available from https://eclipse.org/aspectj.
To retain their MPL 1.1 license, Ajde for
http://aspectj4emacs.sourceforge.net/[Emacs],
http://aspectj4netbean.sourceforge.net/[NetBeans] and
http://aspectj4jbuildr.sourceforge.net/[JBuilder] are now independent
SourceForge projects.

'''''

'''''

[[details]]
== Details of some language and compiler changes

[[ASPECT_INSTANTIATION_AND_ADVICE]]
=== Aspect Instantiation and Advice

In AspectJ 1.0.6, we made an effort to hide some complications with
Aspect instantiation from the user. In particular, the following code
compiled and ran:

[source, java]
....
public class Client {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        Client c = new Client();
    }
}

aspect Watchcall {
    pointcut myConstructor(): execution(new(..));

    before(): myConstructor() {
        System.err.println("Entering Constructor");
    }
}
....

But there's a conceptual problem with this code: The before advice
should run before the execution of all constructors in the system. It
must run in the context of an instance of the Watchcall aspect. The only
way to get such an instance is to have Watchcall's default constructor
execute. But before that executes, we need to run the before advice...

AspectJ 1.0.6 hid this circularity through the ad-hoc mechanism of
preventing an aspect's advice from matching join points that were within
the aspect's definition, and occurred before the aspect was initialized.
But even in AspectJ 1.0.6, this circularity could be exposed:

[source, java]
....
public class Client {
    public static int foo() { return 3; }
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        Client c = new Client();
    }
}

aspect Watchcall {
    int i = Client.foo();
    pointcut myConstructor():
        execution(new(..)) || execution(int foo());

    before(): myConstructor() {
        System.err.println("Entering Constructor");
    }
}
....

This program would throw a NullPointerException when run, since
Client.foo() was called before the Watchcall instance could be
instantiated.

In AspectJ 1.1, we have decided that half-hiding the problem just leads
to trouble, and so we are no longer silently hiding some join points
before aspect initialization. However, we have provided a better
exception than a NullPointerException for this case. In AspectJ 1.1,
both of the above programs will throw
org.aspectj.lang.NoAspectBoundException.

[[THROWS_PATTERN]]
=== Matching based on throws

Type patterns may now be used to pick out methods and constructors based
on their throws clauses. This allows the following two kinds of
extremely wildcarded pointcuts:

[source, java]
....
pointcut throwsMathlike():
  // each call to a method with a throws clause containing at least
  // one exception with "Math" in its name.
  call(* *(..) throws *..*Math*);

pointcut doesNotThrowMathlike():
  // each call to a method with a throws clause containing no
  // exceptions with "Math" in its name.
  call(* *(..) throws !*..*Math*);
....

The longwinded rules are that a method or constructor pattern can have a
"throws clause pattern". Throws clause patterns look like:

[source, text]
....
ThrowsClausePattern:
    ThrowsClausePatternItem ("," ThrowsClausePatternItem)*

ThrowsClausePatternItem:
    ["!"] TypeNamePattern
....

A ThrowsClausePattern matches the ThrowsClause of any code member
signature. To match, each ThrowsClausePatternItem must match the throws
clause of the member in question. If any item doesn't match, then the
whole pattern doesn't match. This rule is unchanged from AspectJ 1.0.

If a ThrowsClausePatternItem begins with "!", then it matches a
particular throws clause if and only if _none_ of the types named in the
throws clause is matched by the TypeNamePattern.

If a ThrowsClausePatternItem does not begin with "!", then it matches a
throws clause if and only if _any_ of the types named in the throws
clause is matched by the TypeNamePattern.

These rules are completely backwards compatible with AspectJ 1.0. The
rule for "!" matching has one potentially surprising property, in that
the two PCD's shown below will have different matching rules.

[source, java]
....
/*[1]*/ call(* *(..) throws !IOException)
/*[2]*/ call(* *(..) throws (!IOException))

void m() throws RuntimeException, IOException {}
....

[1] will NOT match the method m(), because method m's throws clause
declares that it throws IOException. [2] WILL match the method m(),
because method m's throws clause declares the it throws some exception
which does not match IOException, i.e. RuntimeException.

[[NEW_PCDS]]
=== New kinded pointcut designators

AspectJ 1.0 does not provide kinded pointcut designators for two (rarely
used) join points: preinitialization (the code that runs before a super
constructor call is made) and advice execution. AspectJ 1.1 does not
change the meaning of the join points, but provides two new pointcut
designators to pick out these join points, thus making join points and
pointcut designators more parallel.

`adviceexectuion()` will pick out advice execution join points. You will
usually want to use `adviceexecution()     && within(Aspect)` to
restrict it to only those pieces of advice defined in a particular
aspect. +
`preinitialization(ConstructorPattern)` will pick out pre-initialization
join points where the initialization process is entered through
`ConstructorPattern`.

[[PER_TYPE]]
=== New pertype aspect specifier (not in 1.1)

We strongly considered adding a pertype aspect kind to 1.1. This is
somewhat motivated by the new
xref:#SINGLE_INTERCLASS_TARGET[restrictions on inter-type declarations]

. This is also motivated by many previous request to support a common
logging idiom. Here's what pertype would look like:

[source, java]
....
/** One instance of this aspect will be created for each class,
 * interface or aspect in the com.bigboxco packages.
 */
aspect Logger pertype(com.bigboxco..*) {
    /* This field holds a logger for the class. */
    Log log;

    /* This advice will run for every public execution defined by
     * a type for which a Logger aspect has been created, i.e.
     * any type in com.bigboxco..*
     */
    before(): execution(public * *(..)) {
        log.enterMethod(thisJoinPoint.getSignature().getName());
    }

    /* We can use a special constructor to initialize the log field */
    public Logger(Class myType) {
        this.log = new Log(myType);
    }
}

/** External code could use aspectOf to get at the log, i.e. */
Log l = Logger.aspectOf(com.bigboxco.Foo.class).log;
....

The one open question that we see is how this should interact with inner
types. If a pertype aspect is created for an outer type should advice in
that aspect run for join points in inner types? That is the behavior of
the most common uses of this idiom.

In any case, this feature will not be in AspectJ 1.1.

[[SINGLE_INTERCLASS_TARGET]]
=== One target for intertype declarations

Intertype declarations (once called "introductions") in AspectJ 1.1 can
only have one target type. So the following code intended to declare
that there is a void doStuff() method on all subtypes of Target is not
legal AspectJ 1.1 code.

[source, java]
....
aspect A {
    public void Target+.doStuff() { ... }
}
....

The functionality of "multi-intertype declarations" can be recovered by
using a helper interface.

[source, java]
....
aspect A {
    private interface MyTarget {}
    declare parents:  Target+ implements MyTarget;
    public void MyTarget.doStuff() { ... }
}
....

We believe this is better style in AspectJ 1.0 as well, as it makes
clear the static type of "this" inside the method body.

The one piece of functionality that can not be easily recovered is the
ability to add static fields to many classes. We believe that the
xref:#PER_TYPE[pertype proposal] provides this functionality in a much
more usable form.

[[UNAVAILABLE_JOIN_POINTS]]
=== No initializer execution join points

AspectJ 1.1 does not consider initializer execution a principled join
point. The collection of initializer code (the code that sets fields
with initializers and the code in non-static initializer blocks) is
something that makes sense only in Java source code, not in Java
bytecode.

[[AFTER_HANDLER]]
=== No after or around advice on handler join points

The end of an exception handler is underdetermined in bytecode, so ajc
will not implement after or around advice on handler join points,
instead signaling a compile-time error.

[[CONSTRUCTOR_EXECUTION_IS_BIGGER]]
=== Initializers run inside constructor execution join points

The code generated by the initializers in Java source code now runs
inside of constructor execution join points. This changes how before
advice runs on constructor execution join points. Consider:

[source, java]
....
class C {
    C() { }
    String id = "identifier"; // this assignment
                              // has to happen sometime
}

aspect A {
    before(C c) this(c) && execution(C.new()) {
        System.out.println(c.id.length());
    }
}
....

In AspectJ 1.0, this will print "10", since id is assigned its initial
value prior to the before advice's execution. However, in AspectJ 1.1,
this will throw a NullPointerExcception, since "id" does not have a
value prior to the before advice's execution.

Note that the various flavors of after returning advice are unchanged in
this respect in AspectJ 1.1. Also note that this only matters for the
execution of constructors that call a super-constructor. Execution of
constructors that call a this-constructor are the same in AspectJ 1.1 as
in AspectJ 1.0.

We believe this difference should be minimal to real programs, since
programmers using before advice on constructor execution must always
assume incomplete object initialization, since the constructor has not
yet run.

[[INTER_TYPE_FIELD_INITIALIZERS]]
=== Inter-type field initializers

The initializer, if any, of an inter-type field definition runs before
the class-local initializers of its target class.

In AspectJ 1.0.6, such an initializer would run after the initializers
of a class but before the execution of any of its constructor bodies. As
already discussed in the sections about
xref:#UNAVAILABLE_JOIN_POINTS[initializer execution join points] and
xref:#CONSTRUCTOR_EXECUTION_IS_BIGGER[constructor execution], the point
in code between the initializers of a class and its constructor body is
not principled in bytecode. So we had a choice of running the
initializer of an inter-type field definition at the beginning of
initialization (i.e., before initializers from the target class) or at
the end (i.e., just before its called constructor exits). We chose the
former, having this pattern in mind:

[source, java]
....
int C.methodCount = 0;
before(C c): this(c) && execution(* *(..)) { c.methodCount++; }
....

We felt there would be too much surprise if a constructor called a
method (thus incrementing the method count) and then the field was reset
to zero after the constructor was done.

[[WITHIN_MEMBER_TYPES]]
=== Small limitations of the within pointcut

Because of the guarantees made (and not made) by the Java classfile
format, there are cases where AspectJ 1.1 cannot guarantee that the
within pointcut designator will pick out all code that was originally
within the source code of a certain type.

The non-guarantee applies to code inside of anonymous and local types
inside member types. While the within pointcut designator behaves
exactly as it did in AspectJ 1.0 when given a package-level type (like
C, below), if given a member-type (like C.InsideC, below), it is not
guaranteed to capture code in contained local and anonymous types. For
example:

[source, java]
....
class C {
    Thread t;
    class InsideC {
        void setupOuterThread() {
            t = new Thread(
                    new Runnable() {
                        public void run() {
                            // join points with code here
                            // might not be captured by
                            // within(C.InsideC), but are
                            // captured by within(C)
                            System.out.println("hi");
                        }
                    });
        }
    }
}
....

We believe the non-guarantee is small, and we haven't verified that it
is a problem in practice.

[[WITHIN_CODE]]
=== Small limitations of the withincode pointcut

The withincode pointcut has similar issues to those described above for
within.

[[INSTANCEOF_ON_WILD]]
=== Can't do instanceof matching on type patterns with wildcard

The pointcut designators this, target and args specify a dynamic test on
their argument. These tests can not be performed on type patterns with
wildcards in them. The following code that compiled under 1.0 will be an
error in AspectJ-1.1:

[source, java]
....
pointcut oneOfMine(): this(com.bigboxco..*);
....

The only way to implement this kind of matching in a modular way would
be to use the reflection API at runtime on the Class of the object. This
would have a very high performance cost and possible security issues.
There are two good work-arounds. If you control the source or bytecode
to the type you want to match then you can use declare parents, i.e.:

[source, java]
....
private interface OneOfMine {}
declare parents: com.bigboxco..* implements OneOfMine;
pointcut oneOfMine(): this(OneOfMine);
....

If you want the more dynamic matching and are willing to pay for the
performance, then you should use the Java reflection API combined with
if. That would look something like:

[source, java]
....
pointcut oneOfMine(): this(Object) &&
    if(classMatches("com.bigboxco..*",
                    thisJoinPoint.getTarget().getClass()));

static boolean classMatches(String pattern, Class _class) {
    if (patternMatches(pattern, _class.getName())) return true;
    ...
}
....

Note: wildcard type matching still works in all other PCD's that match
based on static types. So, you can use 'within(com.bigboxco..*+)' to
match any code lexically within one of your classes or a subtype
thereof. This is often a good choice.

[[NO_SOURCE_COLUMN]]
=== SourceLocation.getColumn()

The Java .class file format contains information about the source file
and line numbers of its contents; however, it has no information about
source columns. As a result, we can not effectively support the access
of column information in the reflection API. So, any calls to
thisJoinPoint.getSourceLocation().getColumn() will be marked as
deprecated by the compiler, and will always return 0.

[[ASPECT_PRECEDENCE]]
=== Aspect precedence

AspectJ 1.1 has a new declare form:

[source, java]
....
declare precedence ":"  TypePatternList ";"
....

This is used to declare advice ordering constraints on join points. For
example, the constraints that (1) aspects that have Security as part of
their name should dominate all other aspects, and (2) the Logging aspect
(and any aspect that extends it) should dominate all non-security
aspects, can be expressed by:

[source, java]
....
declare precedence: *..*Security*, Logging+, *;
....

In the TypePatternList, the wildcard * means "any type not matched by
another type in the declare precedence".

==== Various cycles

It is an error for any aspect to be matched by more than one TypePattern
in a single declare precedence, so:

[source, java]
....
declare precedence:  A, B, A ;  // error
....

However, multiple declare precedence forms may legally have this kind of
circularity. For example, each of these declare precedence is perfectly
legal:

[source, java]
....
declare precedence: B, A;
declare precedence: A, B;
....

And a system in which both constraints are active may also be legal, so
long as advice from A and B don't share a join point. So this is an
idiom that can be used to enforce that A and B are strongly independent.

==== Applies to concrete aspects

Consider the following library aspects:

[source, java]
....
abstract aspect Logging {
    abstract pointcut logged();

    before(): logged() {
        System.err.println("thisJoinPoint: " + thisJoinPoint);
    }
}

aspect MyProfiling {
    abstract pointcut profiled();

    Object around(): profiled() {
        long beforeTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
        try {
            return proceed();
        } finally {
            long afterTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
            addToProfile(thisJoinPointStaticPart,
                         afterTime - beforeTime);
        }
    }
    abstract void addToProfile(
        org.aspectj.JoinPoint.StaticPart jp,
        long elapsed);
}
....

In order to use either aspect, they must be extended with concrete
aspects, say, MyLogging and MyProfiling. In AspectJ 1.0, it was not
possible to express that Logging's advice (when concerned with the
concrete aspect MyLogging) dominated Profiling's advice (when concerned
with the concrete aspect MyProfiling) without adding a dominates clause
to Logging itself. In AspectJ 1.1, we can express that constraint with a
simple:

[source, java]
....
declare precedence: MyLogging, MyProfiling;
....

==== Changing order of advice for sub-aspects

By default, advice in a sub-aspect has more precedence than advice in a
super-aspect. One use of the AspectJ 1.0 dominates form was to change
this precedence:

[source, java]
....
abstract aspect SuperA dominates SubA {
    pointcut foo(): ... ;

    before(): foo() {
        // in AspectJ 1.0, runs before the advice in SubA
        // because of the dominates clause
    }
}

aspect SubA extends SuperA {
    before(): foo() {
        // in AspectJ 1.0, runs after the advice in SuperA
        // because of the dominates clause
    }
}
....

This no longer works in AspectJ 1.1, since declare precedence only
matters for concrete aspects. Thus, if you want to regain this kind of
precedence change, you will need to refactor your aspects.

[[SOURCEROOT]]
=== The -sourceroots option

The AspectJ 1.1 compiler now accepts a -sourceroots option used to pass
all .java files in particular directories to the compiler. It takes
either a single directory name, or a list of directory names separated
with the CLASSPATH separator character (":" for various Unices, ";" for
various Windows).

So, if you have your project separated into a gui module and a base
module, each of which is stored in a directory tree, you might use one
of

[source, text]
....
ajc -sourceroots /myProject/gui:/myProject/base
ajc -sourceroots d:\myProject\gui;d:\myProject\base
....

This option may be used in conjunction with lst files, listing .java
files on the command line, and the -injars option.

[[BYTECODE_WEAVING]]
=== The -injars option

The AspectJ 1.1 compiler now accepts an -injars option used to pass all
.class files in a particular jar file to the compiler. It takes either a
single directory name, or a list of directory names separated with the
CLASSPATH separator character (":" for various Unices, ";" for various
Windows).

So, if MyTracing.java defines a trace aspect that you want to apply to
all the classes in myBase.jar and myGui.jar, you would use one of:

[source, text]
....
ajc -injars /bin/myBase.jar:/bin/myGui.jar MyTracing.java
ajc -injars d:\bin\myBase.jar;d:\bin\myGui.jar MyTracing.java
....

The class files in the input jars must not have had advice woven into
them, since AspectJ enforces the requirement that advice is woven into a
particular classfile only once. So if the classfiles in the jar file are
to be created with the ajc compiler (as opposed to a pure Java
compiler), they should not be compiled with any non-abstract aspects.

This option may be used in conjunction with lst files, listing .java
files on the command line, and the -sourceroots option.

[[OUTJAR]]
=== The -outjar option

The -outjar option takes the name of a jar file into which the results
of the compilation should be put. For example:

[source, text]
....
ajc -injars myBase.jar MyTracing.java -outjar myTracedBase.jar
....

No meta information is placed in the output jar file.

[[INCREMENTAL]]
=== Incremental compilation

The AspectJ 1.1 compiler now supports incremental compilation. When ajc
is called with the -incremental option, it must also be passed a
-sourceroots option specifying a directory to incrementally compile.
Once the initial compile is done, ajc waits for console input. Every
time it reads a new line (i.e., every time the user hits return) ajc
recompiles those input files that need recompiling.

==== Limitations

This new functionality is still only lightly tested.

[[XNOWEAVE]]
=== -XnoWeave, a compiler option to suppress weaving

The -XnoWeave option suppresses weaving, and generates classfiles and
that can be passed to ajc again (through the -injars option) to generate
final, woven classfiles.

This option was originally envisioned to be the primary way to generate
binary aspects that could be linked with other code, and so it was
previously (in AspectJ 1.1beta1) named `-noweave`. We feel that using
the `-aspectpath` option is a much better option. There may still be use
cases for unwoven classfiles, but we've moved the flag to experimental
status.

[[BINARY_ASPECTS]]
=== -aspectpath, working with aspects in .class/.jar form

When aspects are compiled into classfiles, they include all information
necessary for the ajc compiler to weave their advice and deal with their
inter-type declarations. In order for these aspects to have an effect on
a compilation process, they must be passed to the compiler on the
-aspectpath. Every .jar file on this path will be searched for aspects
and any aspects that are found will be enabled during the compilation.
The binary forms of this aspects will be untouched.

[[NO_CALLEE_SIDE_CALL]]
=== Callee-side call join points

The 1.0 implementation of AspectJ, when given:

[source, java]
....
class MyRunnable implements Runnable {
    public void run() { /*...*/ }
}

aspect A {
    call(): (void run()) && target(MyRunnable) {
        // do something here
    }
}
....

would cause A's advice to execute even when, say, java.lang.Thread
called run() on a MyRunnable instance.

With the new compiler, two things have happened in regard to callee-side
calls:

. because the programmer has access to more code (i.e., bytecode, not
just source code), callee-side calls are much less important to have.
. because compilation is more modular, allowing and encouraging separate
compilation, callee-side calls are much more difficult to implement

With these two points in mind, advice in an aspect will not be applied
to call join points whose call site is completely unavailable to the
aspect.

. One reason (though not the only reason) we worked so hard in the
_implementation_ of 1.0.6 to expose call join points, even if we only
had access to the callee's code, was that otherwise users couldn't get
access to call join points where the call was made from bytecode. This
is no longer the case. In short, the implementation controls much more
code (or has the capability to) than ever before.
. The implementation model for the AspectJ 1.1 compiler is to separate
the compilation of aspects/advice from their weaving/linking. A property
of the model is that the compilation requires no access to "target"
code, only the weaving/linking does, and weaving/linking is inherently
per-class local: No action at weaving/linking time depends on the
coordinated mangling of multiple classfiles. Rather, all weaving is done
on a per classfile basis. This is an essential property for the current
separate compilation model. +
However, allowing implementation of call advice on either side requires
simultaneous knowledge of both sides. If we first have access to a call,
we can't decide to simply put the advice on the call site, since later
we may decide to implement on the callee.

This implementation decision is completely in the letter and the spirit
of the AspectJ language. From the semantics guide describing code the
implementation controls:

____
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.
____

And about a particular decision about the 1.0.6 implementation:

____
Different join points have different requirements. Method call join
points can be advised only if ajc controls _either_ the code for the
caller or the code for the receiver, and some call pointcut designators
may require caller context (what the static type of the receiver is, for
example) to pick out join points.
____

The 1.1 implementation makes a different design decision: Method call
join points can be advised only if ajc (in compiler or linker form)
controls the code for the caller.

What does 1.1 gain from this?

* a clear (and implemented) separate compilation model (see point 2,
above)
* a less confusing interaction between call join points and the
thisJoinPoint reflective object: We still get bug reports about source
information sometimes existing and sometimes not existing at call join
points.

What does 1.1 lose from this?

* The ability to capture all calls to Runnable.run() from anywhere to
code ajc has access too, even from Thread, even if you don't compile
java.lang with ajc.
* The ability to, without access to the caller, capture entry to a
particular method, but not super calls.
* A code-size-improvement performance optimization.

What are the possibilities for the future?

* AspectJ 1.1.1 could expand its capture of call join points, possibly
at the expense of separate compilation clarity, possibly not.
* AspectJ 1.1.1 could re-introduce reception join points from AspectJ
0.7 (what callee-side call join points actually are): though they would
never ever be taught in a tutorial or entry-level description of the
model, they may have specialized uses.

How will this affect developers?

* When using the call PCD but only supplying the callee code, supply the
calling code or use the execution PCD instead.

[[OTHER_X_OPTIONS]]
=== Various -X options

The AspectJ 1.0 compiler supported a number of options that started with
X, for "experimental". Some of them will not be supported in 1.1, either
because the "experiment" succeeded (in which case it's part of the
normal functionality) or failed. Others will be supported as is (or
nearly so) in 1.1:

* -XOcodeSize: This is no longer necessary because inlining of around
advice is on by default. We support its inverse,
xref:#XNOINLINE[`-XnoInline`].
* xref:#XNOWEAVE[-XnoWeave, a compiler option to suppress weaving]
* -XtargetNearSource: Not supported in this release.
* -XserializableAspects: Supported.
* -XaddSafePrefix: This option will not be supported in 1.1 at all
because we're now always using (what we believe to be) safe prefixes.
* -Xlint: Still supported, with xref:#XLINT[various options].

[[ERROR_MESSAGES]]
=== Some confusing error messages

Building on the eclipse compiler has given us access to a very
sophisticated problem reporting system as well as highly optimized error
messages for pure Java code. Often this leads to noticeably better error
messages than from ajc-1.0.6. However, when we don't handle errors
correctly this can sometimes lead to cascading error messages where a
single small syntax error will produce dozens of other messages. Please
report any very confusing error messages as bugs.

[[MESSAGE_CONTEXT]]
=== Source code context is not shown for errors and warnings detected during bytecode weaving

For compiler errors and warnings detected during bytecode weaving,
source code context will not be displayed. In particular, for declare
error and declare warning statements, the compiler now only emits the
file and line. We are investigating ways to overcome this in cases where
the source code is available; in cases where source code is not
available, we might specify the signature of the offending code. For
more information, see bug 31724.

[[XLINT]]
=== The -Xlint option

`-Xlint:ignore,error,warning` will set the level for all Xlint warnings.
`-Xlint`, alone, is an abbreviation for `-Xlint:warning`.

The `-Xlintfile:lint.properties` allows fine-grained control. In
tools.jar, see `org/aspectj/weaver/XlintDefault.properties` for the
default behavior and a template to copy.

More `-Xlint` warnings are supported now, and we may add disabled
warnings in subsequent bug-fix releases of 1.1. Because the
configurability allows users to turn off warnings, we will be able to
warn about more potentially dangerous situations, such as the
potentially unsafe casts used by very polymorphic uses of proceed in
around advice.

[[NO_SOURCE]]
=== Source-specific options

Because AspectJ 1.1 does not generate source code after weaving, the
source-code-specific options -preprocess, -usejavac, -nocomment and
-workingdir options are meaningless and so not supported.

[[NO_STRICT_LENIENT]]
=== The -strict and -lenient options

Because AspectJ 1.1 uses the Eclipse compiler, which has its own
mechanism for changing strictness, we no longer support the -strict and
-lenient options.

[[NO_PORTING]]
=== The -porting option

AspectJ 1.1 does not have a -porting option.

[[_13_REQUIRED]]
=== J2SE 1.3 required

Because we build on Eclipse, the compiler will no longer run under J2SE
1.2. You must run the compiler (and all tools based on the compiler)
using J2SE 1.3 or later. The code generated by the compiler can still
run on Java 1.1 or later VM's if compiled against the correct runtime
libraries.

[[DEFAULT_CONSTRUCTOR_CONFLICT]]
=== Default constructors

AspectJ 1.1 does not allow the inter-type definition of a zero-argument
constructor on a class with a visible default constructor. So this is no
longer allowed:

[source, java]
....
class C {}

aspect A {
    C.new() {}  // was allowed in 1.0.6
                // is a "multiple definitions" conflict in 1.1
}
....

In the Java Programming Language, a class defined without a constructor
actually has a "default" constructor that takes no arguments and just
calls `super()`.

This default constructor is a member of the class like any other member,
and can be referenced by other classes, and has code generated for it in
classfiles. Therefore, it was an oversight that AspectJ 1.0.6 allowed
such an "overriding" inter-type constructor definition.

[[SUPER_IFACE_INITS]]
=== Initialization join points for super-interfaces

In AspectJ, interfaces may have non-static members due to inter-type
declarations. Because of this, the semantics of AspectJ defines the
order that initializer code for interfaces is run.

In the semantics document for AspectJ 1.0.6, the following promises were
made about the order of this initialization:

. a supertype is initialized before a subtype
. initialized code runs only once
. initializers for supertypes run in left-to-right order

The first two properties are important and are preserved in AspectJ 1.1,
but the third property is and was ludicrous, and was never properly
implemented (and never could be) in AspectJ 1.0.6. Consider:

[source, java]
....
interface Top0 {}
interface Top1 {}
interface I extends Top0, Top1 {}
interface J extends Top1, Top0 {}

class C implements I, J {}
// I says Top0's inits must run before Top1's
// J says Top1's inits must run before Top0's

aspect A {
    int Top0.i = foo("I'm in Top0");
    int Top1.i = foo("I'm in Top1");
    static int foo(String s) {
        System.out.println(s);
        return 37;
    }
}
....

This was simply a bug in the AspectJ specification. The correct third
rule is:

____
the initializers for a type's superclass are run before the initializers
for its superinterfaces.
____

[[VOID_FIELD_SET]]
=== Field Set Join Points

In AspectJ 1.0.6, the join point for setting a field F had, as a return
type, F's type. This was "java compatible" because field assignment in
java, such as "Foo.i = 37", is in fact an expression, and does in fact
return a value, the value that the field is assigned to.

This was never "java programmer compatible", however, largely because
programmers have absorbed the good style of rarely using an assignment
statement in a value context. Programmers typically expect "Foo.i = 37"
not to return a value, but to simply assign a value.

Thus, programmers typically wanted to write something like:

[source, java]
....
void around(): set(int Foo.i) {
    if (theSetIsAllowed()) {
        proceed();
    }
}
....

And were confused by it being a compile-time error. They weren't
confused for long, and soon adapted to writing:

[source, java]
....
int around(): set(int Foo.i) {
    if (theSetIsAllowed()) {
        return proceed();
    } else {
        return Foo.i;
    }
}
....

But there was definitely a short disconnect.

On top of that, we were never shown a convincing use-case for returning
an interesting value from a set join point. When we revisited this
issue, in fact, we realized we had a long-standing bug in 1.0.6 dealing
with the return value of pre-increment expressions (such as ++Foo.i)
that nobody had found because nobody cares about the return value of
such join points.

So, because it's easier to implement, and because we believe that this
is the last possibility to make the semantics more useful, we have made
set join points have a void return type in 1.1.

[[XNOINLINE]]
=== The -XnoInline Option

The `-XnoInline` option to indicate that no inlining of any kind should
be done. This is purely a compiler pragma: No program semantics (apart
from stack traces) will be changed by the presence or absence of this
option.

[[TARGET_TYPES_MADE_PUBLIC]]
=== Target types made public

Even in 1.0.6, the AspectJ compiler has occasionally needed to convert
the visibility of a package-level class to a public one. This was
previously done in an ad-hoc basis that took whole-program analysis into
account. With the incremental compilation model of AspectJ 1.1, we can
now specify the occasions when the compiler makes these visibility
changes.

In particular, the types used in the `this`, `target`, and `args`
pointcuts are made public, as are the super-types from `declare parents`
and the exception type from `declare soft`.

We believe the visibility changes could be avoided in the future with
various implementation tricks if they become a serious concern, but did
not encounter them as such a concern when they were done in the 1.0.6
implementation.

[[STRINGBUFFER]]
=== String + now advised

In Java, the + operator sometimes results in StringBuffer objects being
created, appended to, and used to generate a new String. Thus,

[source, java]
....
class Foo {
    String makeEmphatic(String s) {
        return s + "!";
    }
}
....

is approximately the same at runtime as

[source, java]
....
class Foo {
    String makeEmphatic(String s) {
        return new StringBuffer(s).append("!").toString();
    }
}
....

In the design process of AspectJ 1.0.6 we didn't expose those
StringBuffer methods and constructors as join points (though we did
discuss it), but in 1.1 we do.

This change is likely to affect highly wildcarded aspects, and can do so
in surprising ways. In particular:

[source, java]
....
class A {
    before(int i): call(* *(int)) && args(i) {
        System.err.println("entering with " + i);
    }
}
....

may result in a stack overflow error, since the argument to println is
really

[source, java]
....
new StringBuffer("entering with ").append(i).toString()
....

which has a call to StringBuffer.append(int). In such cases, it's worth
restricting your pointcut, with something like one of:

[source, java]
....
call(* *(int)) && args(i) && !within(A)
call(* *(int)) && args(i) && !target(StringBuffer)
....

[[ONE_FOUR_METHOD_SIGNATURES]]
=== The -1.4 flag and method signatures

Consider the following aspect

[source, java]
....
public aspect SwingCalls {

    pointcut callingAnySwing(): call(* javax.swing..*+.*(..));

    before(): callingAnySwing() {
        System.out.println("Calling any Swing");
    }
}
....

And then consider the two statements

[source, java]
....
JFrame frame = new JFrame();
frame.setTitle("Title");
....

According to the Java Language Specification version 2, the call to
`frame.setTitle("Title")` should always produce the bytecode for a call
to `javax.swing.JFrame.setTitle`. However, older compilers (and eclipse
when run without the `-1.4` flag) will generate the bytecode for a call
to `java.awt.Frame.setTitle` instead since this method is not overriden
by JFrame. The AspectJ weaver depends on the correctly generated
bytecode in order to match patterns like the one you show correctly.

This is a good example of why the pattern
`call(* *(..)) && target(JFrame)` is the recommended style. In general,
OO programmers don't want to care about the static type of an object at
a call site, but only want to know the dynamic instanceof behavior which
is what the target matching will handle.

[[knownLimitations]]
== Known limitations

The AspectJ 1.1.0 release contains a small number of known limitations
relative to the AspectJ 1.1 language. For the most up-to-date
information about known limitations in an AspectJ 1.1 release, see the
bug database at https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs, especially the open bugs
for the
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/buglist.cgi?product=AspectJ&component=Compiler&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED[compiler],
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/buglist.cgi?product=AspectJ&component=IDE&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED[IDE
support],
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/buglist.cgi?product=AspectJ&component=Doc&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED[documentation],
and
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/buglist.cgi?product=AspectJ&component=Ant&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED[Ant
tasks]. Developers should know about bugs marked with the "info" keyword
because those bugs reflect failures to implement the 1.1 language
perfectly. These might be fixed during the 1.1 release cycle; find them
using the query
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/buglist.cgi?product=AspectJ&keywords=info
For ajc's 1.1 implementation limitations, see
link:progguide/implementation.html[Programming Guide Appendix:
"Implementation Notes"].
