= AspectJ Porting Notes

_© Copyright 1998-2002 Palo Alto Research Center Incorporated,
2003-2004 Contributors. All rights reserved._

* xref:#pre-1_2[Pre-1.2 code]
* xref:#pre-1_1[Pre-1.1 code]
* xref:#pre-1_0_4[Pre-1.0.4 code]
* xref:#pre-1_0rc1[Pre-1.0rc1 code]
* xref:#pre-1_0beta1[Pre-1.0beta1 code]
* xref:#pre-1_0alpha1[Pre-1.0alpha1 code]
* xref:#pre08b3[Pre-0.8beta3 code]
* xref:#pre08b1[Pre-0.8beta1 code]
* xref:#pre07b11[Pre-0.7beta11 code]
* xref:#pre07b10[Pre-0.7beta10 code]

[[pre-1_2]]
== Porting pre-1.2 code to AspectJ 1.2

README-1.2.html contains a discussion of the changes between 1.1 and 1.2.
The key points are:

*The default AspectJ compiler compliance level is now 1.4* (whereas in
previous releases the default compliance level was 1.3). This has a
number of implications:

* class files generated by the compiler are now JRE v1.2 and upwards
compatible. (At compliance level 1.3, AspectJ generated class files that
were compatible with JRE 1.1 also).
* `call` pointcuts may match more join points than in the same program
compiled at compliance level 1.3.

The AspectJ compiler can be restored to 1.3 compliance settings by
specifying the "-1.3" option on the command-line.

The following example program illustrates the differences in join point
matching with the `call` pointcut designator between 1.4 and 1.3
compliance levels.

[source, java]
....
/*01*/ class A {
/*02*/   public void doIt() {...};
/*03*/ }
/*04*/
/*05*/ class B extends A {
/*06*/   public void doThisToo() {...};
/*07*/ }
/*08*/
/*09*/
/*10*/ public class CallsAandB {
/*11*/
/*12*/  public static void main(String[] args) {
/*13*/    B b = new B();
/*14*/    A bInDisguise = new B();
/*15*/
/*16*/    b.doIt();               // AspectJ 1.2 matches here
/*17*/    bInDisguise.doIt();     // this is never matched
/*18*/  }
/*19*/
/*20*/ }
/*21*/
/*22*/ aspect CallPCDMatchingExample {
/*23*/
/*24*/   before() : call(* B.doIt(..)) {
/*25*/     System.out.println("About to call B.doIt(...)");
/*26*/   }
/*27*/
/*28*/ }
....

When this program is compiled with AspectJ 1.2 using the default
compiler options, it will produce one line of output when it is
executed:

`About to call B.doIt(...)`

The same program compiled under AspectJ 1.1 (or using AspectJ 1.2 with
the -1.3 flag specified) does not produce any output when it is run.

The reason for the additional call pcd match is that prior to compliance
level 1.4, Java compilers produced bytecodes that call A.doIt() (the
defining type of the method), rather than B.doIt() (the declared type in
the program text). The generated call to A.doIt() is not matched by the
call pcd used in the before advice. At compliance level 1.4, the
bytecodes retain the declared type of the receiver in the program
source, generating a call to B.doIt(), which _is_ matched by the call
pcd.

This is a good example of why the recommended style is to use
`call(* doIt(..)) && target(B)`, which always matches based on the
actual type of the receiver.

*New warnings emitted by the compiler for unmatched call pcds.* Because
users have found the static type matching used for a type pattern
specified in a `call` pcd confusing (as evidenced by the example above),
AspectJ 1.2 has a new Xlint warning which is enable by default. The
compiler will now produce a warning whenever a call pointcut designator
does not match at a join point, and a user may have expected it to.
Compiling the above program using AspectJ 1.2 produces the following
compiler output:

[source, text]
....
CallsAandB.java:24 warning does not match because declaring type is A, if match desired use target(B) [Xlint:unmatchedSuperTypeInCall]
before() : call(* B.doIt(..)) {
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    see also: CallsAandB.java:17


1 warning
....

The warning is telling us that the call pointcut associated with the
before advice on line 24 of the source file does not match at a join
point where the user may have expected it to. The source location
corresponding to the unmatched join point is indicated by the "see also"
line - in this case line 17 of the source file. At line 17 we find a
call to `bInDisguise.doIt()`. Since the static type of `bInDisguise` is
`A`, this call will never be matched. The warning also tells us a
possible solution if we intended the pointcut to match at this join
point: use `call(* doIt(..) && target(B)`.

If you find warnings of this kind coming out when you use the AspectJ
1.2 compiler, the recommended fix is to switch to using the `target`
designator in place of a type pattern in the `call` pointcut expression.
Note that there is no loss of runtime efficiency here - runtime tests
are only added in the cases where it cannot be determined at compile
time whether the type of the receiver will match the type specified in
the `target` expression. Note that `target` cannot be used in `declare`
statements.

*Use of non-statically determinable pointcut expressions in declare
statements* has always been forbidden, but prior to 1.2 the AspectJ
compiler did not raise an error if they were used. The AspectJ Language
Semantics appendix states that `cflow, cflowbelow, this, target, args`
and `if` pointcut designators cannot be used directly or indirectly
(through a user-defined pointcut) inside of a `declare` statment. When
moving code from 1.1 to 1.2, additional errors may be raised due to the
stricter policing of this rule. The solution is to recode the declare
statement avoiding pointcut expressions that may require a run-time
test.

*Interface constructors no longer supported*. Declaring a constructor on
an interface is now (correctly) prohibited, and there will no longer be
a constructor-execution join point for the interface. To initialize a
field declared on an interface, use initialization, e.g.,

[source, java]
....
int I.i;
after(I i) returning: initialization(I) && this(i) { i.i = 2; }
....

To pick out the constructor-execution for any implementation of I, try

[source, java]
....
execution(I+.new(..))
....

For more information, see bug
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=49295[49295].

*Declaring a static method on an interface* is now (correctly)
prohibited. One workaround is to define a static method on the aspect
instead. For more information, see bug
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=47754[47754].

*Watch for problems due to incompatible BCEL versions.* AspectJ 1.2
includes a different version of BCEL than AspectJ 1.1. If you have the
older version of BCEL available earlier on your classpath than the
version included in the 1.2 aspectjtools.jar then you will see errors
like:

[source, text]
....
C:\work\test\TestAspect.aj error Internal compiler error
java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: org.apache.bcel.generic.InstructionFactory.
createNewArray(Lorg/apache/bcel/generic/Type;S)Lorg/apache/bcel/generic/Instruction;
....

This typically happens because the old version of BCEL has been included
as a standard extension in your JVM configuration. Ensure you have
removed it from jre/lib/ext under your JDK installation.

For more information, see bugs including
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=60389[60389],
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=59921[59921].

[[pre-1_1]]
== Porting pre-1.1 code to AspectJ 1.1

README-1.1.html contains a discussion of the language changes from 1.0 to
1.1. The high points:

The `call(..)` pointcut designator is now implemented only at the call
site; by contrast, the AspectJ 1.0 compiler could also implement it on
the callee side. So in 1.0 if you compiled a pointcut using `call(..)`
but only passed the compiler the code for the target of the call, the
pointcut could be implemented. This is not true for 1.1. To fix this,
use `execution(..)` in place of `call(..)`, or include all calling
clients in the compile. (xref:README-1.1.adoc#NO_CALLEE_SIDE_CALL[more
info])

Type-patterns are no longer permitted for the defining type of
inter-type declarations. Replace the pattern with a type. In many cases,
you can declare members on an interface type, and then declare that the
types picked out by the type-pattern implement have the interface as
their parent. (xref:README-1.1.adoc#SINGLE_INTERCLASS_TARGET[more info])

Type-patterns are no longer permitted when specifying `declare soft`.
Replace the pattern with a literal type.

Wildcards patterns (`foo..*`) are no longer permitted for `this()`,
`target()`, or `args()`. Replace the pattern with a literal type or with
a subtype wildcard (`Type+`).
(xref:README-1.1.adoc#INSTANCEOF_ON_WILD[more info])

Conflicts will be reported for no-argument constructors generated by
compilers when no constructor is defined for a class. That means the
following code will compile in 1.0 but not in 1.1:

[source, java]
....
class C {}
aspect A {
   C.new() {}  // permitted in 1.0; conflict in 1.1
}
....

One fix is to declare a non-conflicting constructor by adding arguments
(or defining a constructor in the target class); a better fix might be
to do the work of the declared constructor in advice on the
initialization join point for the object.
(xref:README-1.1.adoc#DEFAULT_CONSTRUCTOR_CONFLICT[more info])

The pointcut designators `within()` and `withincode()` will not pick out
code within the lexical extent of method-local and anonymous inner types
(because these are not represented as such in bytecode form). Because
`within` forms specify staticly-determinable pointcuts, they might be
used in declare error or declare warning statements, which might produce
different results. (xref:README-1.1.adoc#WITHIN_MEMBER_TYPES[more info])

The compiler will report an error that the form
`aspect \{name} dominates \{list}...` is no longer supported. It has been
replaced by a new declare statement:

[source, java]
....
declare precedence : {name} {list}...
....

(xref:README-1.1.adoc#ASPECT_PRECEDENCE[more info])

The field set join point now has a return type of `void`. Compiling
programs using around advice on these join points might cause errors
unless the return type of the around advice and the result of any
proceed() call is `Object` or `void`.
(xref:README-1.1.adoc#VOID_FIELD_SET[more info])

The compiler cannot implement after or around advice for the handler PCD
because the end of exception handlers is ambiguous in bytecode. Try to
use before advice. (xref:README-1.1.adoc#AFTER_HANDLER[more info])

[[pre-1_0_4]]
== Porting pre-1.0.4 code

In versions of AspectJ prior to 1.0.4, the compiler was not correctly
implementing the AspectJ-1.0 language design for some uses of after
returning advice.

The main change that was made was of after returning advice for
constructor execution join points. Previously, this advice was legal:

[source, java]
....
after() returning (Foo f): execution(Foo.new(..)) { ... }
....

However, it has always been a part of the 1.0 language design (and of
Java's language design) that constructors themselves (as opposed to
constructor calls) do not return the value of the new object. Rather,
`this` is bound to the new object, and the constructor behaves like a
void method. With that in mind, any code like the above should be
conveted to the form.

[source, java]
....
after(Foo f) returning: this(f) && execution(Foo.new(..)) { ... }
....

In compilers prior to 1.0.4, the following advice could pick out join
points

[source, java]
....
after() returning (String s): call(void foo()) { ... }
....

This is no longer picked out. This pattern was most commonly used in
highly polymorphic contexts, such as

[source, java]
....
after() returning (String s): call(* foo()) { ... }
....

If you want to capture all calls, binding null objects for those that
would otherwise have no value, you must use the `Object` type.

[source, java]
....
after() returning (Object o): call(* foo()) { ... }
....

Uses of both of these forms are highleted with compiler warnings in the
1.0.4 compiler.

'''''

[[pre-1_0rc1]]
== Porting pre-1.0rc1 code

Aspects can no longer be declared to implement the `Serializable` or
`Cloneable` interfaces. If you previously used serializable or cloneable
aspects, you should refactor your code to keep the state you need to
serialize or clone in objects associated with the aspects.

'''''

[[pre-1_0beta1]]
== Porting pre-1.0beta1 code

The `static` modifier is no longer allowed on pointcut declarations
anywhere. Porting is simple; just remove the static declarations when
you find them.

Also, though the `returns` modifier on pointcuts has not been part of
the language since 1.0alpha1, the compiler still accepted them until
now. If you used this feature, now is the right time to remove the
`returns` modifier when the compiler complains about it.

'''''

[[pre-1_0alpha1]]
== Porting pre-1.0alpha1 code

The release of AspectJ 1.0alpha1 involved sweeping cleanups of the
language to bring it to 1.0 status.

* xref:#_1_0a1-pointcuts[Pointcuts]
* xref:#_1_0a1-type-patterns[Type patterns]
* xref:#_1_0a1-advice[Advice]
* xref:#_1_0a1-introduction-and-static[Introduction and static
crosscutting]
* xref:#_1_0a1-aspects[Aspects]

[[_1_0a1-pointcuts]]
=== Pointcuts

[[_1_0a1-plural-to-singular]]
==== Removing the "s" from pointcuts

One of the most pervasive changes in porting code written before
1.0alpha1 is the change in some of the pointcut names from plural to
singular, that is, they lose an "s". In one sense, making this change in
your programs is easy: Just go through and whever you see uses of the
pointcuts `calls, executions, gets, sets, handlers, initializations,
staticinitializations`.

Just take off the final "s", to make one of `call, execution, get, set, handler, initialization, staticinitialization`.

Often, there will be other changes you should make for each of these
pointcuts, but as for the name, just take off the "s".

One risk you will have when doing this is creating name conflicts. If,
for example, you named a parameter of a pointcut "set", you should (for
your own sanity -- the compiler doesn't require it) rename it in the
rewritten pointcut.

[source, java]
....
pointcut sort(Collection set): calls(void addAll(set));
// ==>
pointcut sort(Collection mySet): call(void addAll(mySet));
....

While converting to use singular nouns for the primitive pointcuts, you
may also want to remove the "s" from your user-defined pointcuts.

[source, java]
....
pointcut publicCalls(): calls(public * *(..));
// ==>
pointcut publicCall(): call(public * *(..));
....

Of course, your naming conventions are your own, but throughout these
porting notes we will be making these changes in our example ports.

[[_1_0a1-remove-receptions]]
==== Removing the receptions pointcut

Perhaps the largest semantic change in the 1.0 language is the removal
of receptions join points. They have been merged with call join points
in AspectJ 1.0, so now a call join point doesn't represent the
"caller-side" of a call, but the call itself, both caller and receiver.

Changing code that used the `receptions` pointcut should be fairly
straightforward, depending on whether the pointcut exposed state or not.

===== Not exposing state

Receptions pointcuts that did not expose state can simply be replaced by
the new `call` and `target` pointcuts:

[source, java]
....
receptions(void Foo.m())
// ==>
target(Foo) && call(void m())
....

===== Exposing state

Some receptions pointcuts exposed the receiving object by replacing the
receiving type with a pointcut formal. These PCDs should be rewritten to
use the new `target` pointcut to expose the receiving object.

[source, java]
....
pointcut fooCallees(Foo f): receptions(void f.m());
// ==>
pointcut fooCallee(Foo f): target(f) && call(void m());
....

Like xref:#_1_0a1-fixing-state-access[other pointcuts], receptions
pointcuts that exposed one or more arguments should be rewritten to use
the `args` pointcut:

[source, java]
....
pointcut intPassers(int i, int j): receptions(void Foo.m(i, j));
// ==>
pointcut intPasser(int i, int j):
    args(i, j) && target(Foo) && call(void m(int, int));
....

===== Constructor receptions

There are two issues with constructor receptions in particular.

Like xref:#_1_0a1-constructor-calls[constructor calls], constructor
receptions pointcuts had a dynamic character, in that
`receptions(C.new())` would capture constructions of not only C classes,
but also of classes that extended C.

If you want this behaviour, then you need to use the new subtypes
operator, +, on the type name in question. So,

[source, java]
....
receptions(C.new())
// ==>
call(C+.new())
....

Also like xref:#_1_0a1-constructor-calls[constructor calls], constructor
receptions allowed access to the constructed object in the same way as
any other object. Since the only advice possible on constructor
receptions join points was `after returning` advice, the object was
always guaranteed to be there. But since constructor call join points
allow all kinds of advice it may be that the object isn't constructed
yet (say, in before or around advice). This is a benefit, in that it
allows caching constructed objects

[source, java]
....
aspect Singleton {
  private C theC = null;

  C around(): call(C.new(..)) {
    if (c == null) theC = proceed();
    return theC;
  }
}
....

but it does require some rewriting. The new object can be accessed as
the return value in after returning advice. So,

[source, java]
....
after(Point p) returning (): receptions(p.new(int, int)) { ... }
// ==>
after() returning (Point p): call(Point+.new(int, int)) { ... }
....

[[_1_0a1-fixing-state-access]]
==== Fixing state access

In previous versions of AspectJ, state such as the currently executing
object or a particular argument of a method call could be accessed from
the signatures of many pointcuts, leading to difficult-to-read forms. In
AspectJ 1.0, all state accesses now use only three pointcuts `args, this, target`
which pick out argument values, the currently executing object, and the
target object of a method call or field operation, respectively.

===== Using args

Any time you have a pointcut that has a signature where one of the
arguments was a pointcut or advice formal, just replace that formal with
its type and add an `args` pointcut.

[source, java]
....
pointcut intPassers(int i, int j): calls(void Foo.m(i, j));
// ==>
pointcut intPasser(int i, int j): args(i, j) && call(void Foo.m(int, int));
....

[source, java]
....
pointcut stringPassers(String s): receptions(void Foo.m(s, ..));
// ==>
pointcut stringPasser(String s): args(s, ..) && call(void Foo.m(String, ..));
....

===== Rewriting calls

If a calls pointcut exposed the the receiving object, such as

[source, java]
....
pointcut fooCallees(Foo f): calls(void f.m());
....

then the new version should use the `target` pointcut to get at that
object

[source, java]
....
pointcut fooCallee(Foo f): target(f) && call(void Foo.m());
....

AspectJ's calls pointcut previously allowed the new object to be
exposed, even though it may not have been constructed yet. AspectJ 1.0
no longer allows this; you can access the new instance only in after
returning advice, when it is guaranteed that the object was successfully
constructed. So instead of using the `target` pointcut to expose the
value, you should use the normal `after returning` mechanism:

[source, java]
....
after(Point p) returning (): calls(p.new(int, int)) { ... }
// ==>
after() returning (Point p): call(Point+.new(int, int)) { ... }
....

===== Rewriting gets and sets

Exposing the target object of a `gets` or `sets` pointcut should be done
the same way it was for `calls` pointcuts, with the new `target`
pointcut.

[source, java]
....
before(Frame f): gets(Color f.color) { ... }
// ==>
before(Frame f): target(f) && get(Color Frame.color) { ... }
....

[source, java]
....
before(Frame f): sets(Color f.color) { ... }
// ==>
before(Frame f): target(f) && set(Color Frame.color) { ... }
....

In addition, the clumsy syntax for getting the old value of the field
has been eliminated. For before advice, the port is simple; just access
the field yourself in the body. Depending on the rest of your system,
you may need to restrict the advice from the aspect body to eliminiate
the circularity.

[source, java]
....
aspect A {
  before(Frame f, Color c): gets(Color f.color)[c] { ... }
}

// ==>

aspect A {
  before(Frame f):
    target(f) && get(Color Frame.color) && !within(A)
  {
    Color c = f.color;
    // ...
  }
}
....

The same can be done for `around` advice. However, the only way to port
after advice that needs the old value is to convert it to around advice.

[source, java]
....
aspect A {
  after(Frame f, Color c) returning (): gets(Color f.color)[c] { ... }
}

// ==>

aspect A {
  void around(Frame f):
    target(f) && get(Color Frame.color) && !within(A)
  {
    Color c = f.color;
    proceed(f);
    // ...
  }
}
....

When porting `sets` pointcuts, the new value of a field is still
available, but not the way it was previously. Instead of using the
square bracket syntax, we use an `args` pointcut. All set join points
are assumed to have exactly one argument, which holds the new value. So,

[source, java]
....
after(Color newColor): sets(Color Frame.color)[][newColor] { ... }
// ==>
after(Color newColor): args(newColor) && set(Color Frame.color) { ... }
....

Also, if the field was declared private, in order to get at its old
value the aspect must be declared `privileged`.

===== Rewriting handlers

The value of the exception at an exception handler join point is now
accessed through the `args` pointcut; all exception handler join points
are treated as having exactly one argument, the exception value. So,

[source, java]
....
before(NotFoundException e): handlers(e) { ... }
// ==>
before(NotFoundException e): args(e) && handler(NotFoundException) { ... }
....

===== Rewriting within

The `within` pointcut was not typically used to export context. Though
it was accidentally possible to do so in versions of AspectJ before 1.0,
it often didn't do what users expected it to. This loophole has now been
closed, and within can only take type patterns, not pointcut or advice
formals. A use of the `this` pointcut will capture what previous
implementations did:

[source, java]
....
pointcut usesFoo(Foo f): within(f);
// ==>
pointcut usesFoo(Foo f): this(f) && within(Foo);
....

[[_1_0a1-no-subs-in-sigs]]
==== Understanding signatures

Now that we have `this`, `target`, and `args` pointcuts, all of our
signatures are composed of just types, names, and wildcards; there are
no more parameters.

Also, now that we have the `+` wildcard to pick out
xref:#_1_0a1-subtypes-to-plus[subtypes], we can make signature matching
much more uniform.

Previously, some signatures matched based on subtypes, some based on
instanceof, and some exactly. Now, we have made all signatures match
exactly.

What does this mean for your program? Well, it means that you may have
to add `+` to some of your signatures, depending on what you meant them
to match.

For example, the pointcut

[source, java]
....
calls(void m(Object))
....

previously picked out all method calls to a method named m that took one
argument, which was a subtype of Object. Now, however, it will only pick
out method calls to methods that are defined to take exactly the type
Object, which may be a lot fewer join points. If you want the old
behaviour, simply convert to

[source, java]
....
call(void m(Object+))
....

[[_1_0a1-fixing-instanceof]]
==== Removing the instanceof pointcut

The intanceof pointcut has been split into two different pointcuts,
`this` and `target`.

Typically, the instanceof pointcut would only exist in a compound
pointcut, composed (with `&&`) with another pointcut. If the other
pointcut was a `receptions` pointcut, then `instanceof` should be
converted to `target` (and `receptions` converted to `call`). So,

[source, java]
....
pointcut stateChanges(Subject s):
  instanceof(s) && receptions(void Button.click());

// ==>

pointcut stateChange(Subject s):
  target(s) && call(void Button.click());
....

In all other cases, `instanceof` referred to the currently executing
object, and so should be converted into `this`

[source, java]
....
before(Point p): instanceof(p) && executions(* makePolar(..)) { ... }
// ==>
before(Point p): this(p) && execution(* makePolar(..)) { ... }
....

[source, java]
....
pointcut setup(Client c): instanceof(c) && calls(Remote Naming.lookup(String));
// ==>
pointcut setup(Client c): this(c) && calls(Remote Naming.lookup(String));
....

[[_1_0a1-initializations]]
==== Rewriting the initializations pointcut

Object initialization join points are now more complicated, and more
true to Java's execution model. Now they bracket all of the
initialization that a class can do, after the return of its super
constructor call (before which no initialization can happen). Previous
versions of AspectJ had object initialization join points that only
included initialization that was made in dynamic initializers and
fields.

The old behaviour can be recovered with a simple rewrite.

[source, java]
....
initializations(A)
// ==>
initialization(A.new(..)) && !execution(A.new(..))
....

[[_1_0a1-constructor-calls]]
==== Understanding constructor calls

Previously, constructor call join points were matched by subtypes, so
`calls(Foo.new())` would match both calls to create new `Foo` objects,
and new `SubFoo` objects. The new `call` pointcut designator matches
types exactly, so if you want the old behaviour, you should write
`call(Foo+.new())`.

Similarly, constructor execution join points were matched by subtypes.
So the old `executions(Foo.new())` is now represented by
`execution(Foo+.new())`.

In both of these cases, think before using the + operator; it may be
that you didn't intend subtype matching in the first place.

[[_1_0a1-hasaspect]]
==== Removing the hasaspect pointcut

The `hasaspect` pointcut is no longer defined, but you can get the same
behaviour using the new `if` pointcut.

If the aspect whose presense you are checking for was defined
`of eachcflow`, `of eachcflowbelow`, or, more unlikely, `of eachJVM()`,
then the conversion is simple:

[source, java]
....
hasaspect(A)
// ==>
if(A.hasAspect())
....

If the aspect was defined `of eachobject`, then you will have to expose
the current object in your pointcut or advice parameters:

[source, java]
....
pointcut cut(): hasaspect(A) ... ;
// ==>
pointcut cut(Object o): this(o) && if(A.hasAspect(o)) ... ;
// or
pointcut cut(Object o): target(o) && if(A.hasAspect(o)) ... ;
....

If you were using the `hasaspect` pointcut to expose the state of the
aspect, then you can get the same state by using `A.aspectOf()` in the
body of the advice. For example, if the aspect A were defined
`of eachcflow`, then

[source, java]
....
before(A myA): hasaspect(myA) {
  myA.checkStatus();
}
// ==>
before(): if(A.hasAspect()) {
  A myA = A.aspectOf();
  myA.checkStatus();
}
....

[[_1_0a1-withinall]]
==== Removing the withinall pointcut

The withinall poinctut is no longer defined. You can use a combination
of within and the xref:#_1_0a1-subtypes-to-plus[new subtypes operator],
`+`, instead. You'll save two characters and be using a simpler and more
orthogonal language.

[source, java]
....
withinall(Foo)
// ==>
within(Foo+)
....

[[_1_0a1-user-defined-returns]]
==== Removing returns modifier from pointcuts

The returns keyword is no longer necessary for user-defined pointcuts.
Simply remove it when you find it.

[source, java]
....
pointcut publicIntCalls() returns int: calls(public int *(..));
// ==>
pointcut publicIntCall(): call(public int *(..));
....

[[_1_0a1-static-pointcuts]]
==== Making some pointcuts static

In Java, only static members may be accessed by their declaring type
name, like the static method `Math.max()` can be accessed.

Pointcuts now have that property too. Pointcuts may be declared to be
static, in which case they can be accessed like `MyAspect.move()`, or
they can be left non-static, in which case they can be overridden by a
subaspect.

In addition, while pointcuts can still be defined in classes, only
`static` pointcuts can be defined in classes.

Porting should be straightforward; just make all your pointcuts in
classes `static`, and make any pointcut with a qualified reference
static.

[[_1_0a1-type-patterns]]
=== Type patterns

[[_1_0a1-new-wildcards]]
==== Understanding * and .. in type patterns

Previous versions of AspectJ treated * and .. too cleverly in type
patterns, placing restrictions based on what is a package and what is a
type, and basing their meanings on the definition of a package
hierarchy.

In AspectJ 1.0, both of these wildcards are defined simply, and
textually:

* The * wildcard alone matches all types.
* The * wildcard in a pattern matches zero or more characters, but will
not match "."
* The .. wildcard matches any sequence of characters that begins and
ends with "."

That's it.

This change won't affect most programs, but it will make understanding
programs easier. There is one ugly idiom, however, that this change
disposes of. If your program includes the type pattern `*..*`, which
used to match all types, you can replace it with the much simpler *.

[source, java]
....
pointcut unaryVoidMethods(): call(void *(*..*));
// ==>
pointcut unaryVoidMethod(): call(void *(*));
....

[[_1_0a1-subtypes-to-plus]]
==== Fixing subtypes in introduction

The new + operator is used to normalize the many places you want to use
subtypes of some types.

In introduction forms, you will need to replace `subtypes(TypePattern)`
type patterns with the new subtype operator, +. In the case where you
wrote `subtypes(Foo)`, i.e., the subtypes of a single type, simply
replace this with `Foo+`. Otherwise, use the + operator as appropriate
in `TypePattern`.

[source, java]
....
public void (subtypes(Target0 || Target1)).accept(Visitor v) {
  v.visit(this);
}
// ==>
public void (Target0+ || Target1+).accept(Visitor v) {
  v.visit(this);
}
....

[[_1_0a1-advice]]
=== Advice

[[_1_0a1-around-returns]]
==== Moving the return type of around

The returns keyword is no longer used for around advice. Instead, the
return type is declared as it is for methods. So,

[source, java]
....
around(Point p) returns void: setters(p) { ... }
// ==>
void around(Point p): setter(p) { ... }
....

[[_1_0a1-around-throws]]
==== Adding a throws clause to around

Around advice must now declare the checked exceptions it throws with a
`throws` clause, much like a method.

[source, java]
....
char around(char c) throws java.io.CharConversionException: converter(c) {
  char result;
  try { result = proceed(); }
  catch (Exception e) {
    throw new java.io.CharConversionException();
  }
  if (result == 0) throw new java.io.CharConversionException();
  return result;
}
....

[[_1_0a1-advice-precedence]]
==== Understanding advice precedence

In previous versions of AspectJ, advice precedence within an aspect was
simple: if a piece of advice appeared before another piece, it was more
precedent. This made perfect sense for `before` and `around` advice, but
was the cause of confusion (even among the AspectJ designers, more than
once) for `after` advice, as it seemed backward.

In addition, advice was ordered by kind, in that around advice always
surrounded before and after advice.

AspectJ 1.0 has changed this; precedence for `after` advice is inverted,
and advice is no longer ordered by kind.

This won't matter to you unless you write pieces of advice in the same
aspect that apply to the same join point.

If you do, here's what to think about: If you're looking at two pieces
of advice and want to know which has precedence, if either is `after`
advice, then the second one has precedence. Otherwise, the first does.

This allows interesting advice interaction. In the following advice, for
example, the `after throwing` advice will catch the exception thrown by
the `before` advice

[source, java]
....
aspect A {
  before(): call(void main(..)) {
    throw new RuntimeException();
  }
  after() throwing(RuntimeException e): call(void main(..)) {
    System.err.println("caught you!");
  }
}
....

But reversing the order will give the `before` advice more precedence,
making its exception uncatchable by the `after throwing` advice

[source, java]
....
aspect A {
  after() throwing(RuntimeException e): call(void main(..)) {
    System.err.println("missed you!");
  }
  before(): call(void main(..)) {
    throw new RuntimeException();
  }
}
....

Advice in _different_ aspects is ordered by the normal aspect precedence
rules of subtyping and the `dominates` modifier.

[[_1_0a1-after-returning]]
==== Fixing after returning

If you use after returning advice and do not need to expose the return
value, you no longer need to write an empty set of parentheses to
indicate that fact. So,

[source, java]
....
after(Formals) returning (): Pointcut { ... }
// ==>
after(Formals) returning: Pointcut { ... }
....

The same syntax is now available for after throwing advice, in case you
do not care what `Throwable` is thrown.

[source, java]
....
after(Formals) throwing: Pointcut { ... }
....

[[_1_0a1-this-static-join-point]]
==== Renaming thisStaticJoinPoint

`thisStaticJoinPoint` has been renamed `thisJoinPointStaticPart`, to
reflect that it is now exactly the static part of `thisJoinPoint`: It
will return the same object as `thisJoinPoint.getStaticPart()`.

[[_1_0a1-this-join-point]]
==== Converting access to thisJoinPoint

The `JoinPoint` object hierarchy has been folded into a single class,
`org.aspectj.lang.JoinPoint`. A common pattern in logging, for example,
was

[source, java]
....
before() executions(* myMethod()) {
  ExecutionJoinPoint jp = (ExecutionJoinPoint)thisJoinPoint;
  CodeSignature jp = (CodeSignature)jp.getSignature();
  System.err.println(jp.getParameters());
  System.err.println(jp.getParameterNames());
}
....

While there is still a rich hierarchy for signatures, there is only one
`JoinPoint` type, so this can be rewritten as:

[source, java]
....
before() executions(* myMethod()) {
  JoinPoint jp = thisJoinPoint;
  CodeSignature jp = (CodeSignature)jp.getSignature();
  System.err.println(jp.getArgs());
  System.err.println(jp.getParameterNames());
}
....

Some of the method names of `JoinPoint` have been reorganized, as well.

[[_1_0a1-introduction-and-static]]
=== Introduction and static crosscutting

[[_1_0a1-plus-implements-extends]]
==== Removing +implements and +extends

The keywords `+implements` and `+extends` no longer exist. Instead,
AspectJ uses the `declare` form for exactly the same functionality.

[source, java]
....
Point +implements Serializable;
// ==>
declare parents: Point implements Serializable;
....

[source, java]
....
MyButton +extends ButtonAdaptor;
// ==>
declare parents: MyButton extends ButtonAdaptor;
....

[[_1_0a1-now-use-soft]]
==== Using declare soft

Around advice advice no longer effects the static exception checking of
Java. This means that the following code previously compiled:

[source, java]
....
class C {
  void noExceptionDeclared() {
    exceptionDeclared();
  }
  void exceptionDeclared() throws IOException {}
}

aspect A {
  around(): call(void C.exceptionDeclared()) {
    try { proceed(); }
    catch (IOException e) {}
  }
}
....

even though the class `C` is not compilable on its own (because
`noExceptionDeclared` actually throws an `Exception`).

AspectJ now firmly places everything that affects the type system of
Java, including the declared-exception checking system, into the space
of introduction and declare. So, in order to state that the call to
`exceptionDeclared()` will not, actually, throw an exception, we now
"soften" that exception, that is, take it out of the space of declared
exceptions.

[source, java]
....
declare soft: ExceptionType: Pointcut;
....

The pointcuts allowed here are limited; you cannot use pointcuts that
would require runtime information. But picking out method calls is just
fine. So in order to make the above example work, one new declaration is
needed:

[source, java]
....
declare soft: IOException:
  call(void C.exceptionDeclared()) &&
  withincode(void noExceptionDeclared());
....

[[_1_0a1-aspects]]
=== Aspects

The syntax of "of each" modifiers has changed. For `of eachcflow` and
`of eachcflowbelow`, you can simply replace "of each" with "per". So,

[source, java]
....
aspect A of eachcflow(...) { ... }
// ==>
aspect A percflow(...) { ... }
....

If you have any aspects defined `of eachJVM()`, then you should either
remove that declaration entirely (because this is the default
behaviour), or replace the `of eachJVM()` declaration with an
`issingleton` declaration.

[source, java]
....
aspect of eachJVM() { ... }
// ==>
aspect A { ... }
// or
aspect A issingleton { ... }
....

The `of eachobject(Pointcut)` modifier has been split into two different
forms, `of perthis(Pointcut)` and `of pertarget(Pointcut)`. Which one
you replace with depends on the `Pointcut` you use.

If you use a pointcut that picked out reception join points, then use
`pertarget`, and rewrite the pointcut to pick out call join points. So

[source, java]
....
aspect Shadow
  of eachobject(
    receptions(void Point.setX(int)) ||
    receptions(void Point.setY(int))
  )
{
  // ...
}

// ==>

aspect Shadow
  pertarget(
    call(void Point.setX(int)) ||
    call(void Point.setY(int))
  )
{
  // ...
}
....

Otherwise, in most cases, use `perthis`. When you convert, remember the
meaning of each of these modifiers. `perthis(Pointcut)` indicates that
an instance of the aspect should be associated with every object that is
`this` at each of the join points picked out by `Pointcut`, while
`pertarget(Pointcut)` associates with every object that is the target
object at such join points.

'''''

[[pre08b3]]
== Porting pre-0.8beta3 code

* xref:#cflowTerminology[Changing cflow terminology]
* xref:#abstractPointcuts[Overriding abstract pointcuts]
* xref:#recursiveAdvice[Limiting recursive advice]

The following changes are only required when porting code written prior
to the 0.8beta3 release of AspectJ.

[[cflowTerminology]]
=== Changing cflow terminology

Changing pre-0.8beta3 code that uses AspectJ's control-flow-based
features only requires rewriting occurrences of `eachcflowroot`,
`cflow`, and `cflowtop`. No editing of other aspect code is necessary.

==== eachcflowroot

The aspect modifier "`of eachcflowroot(Pointcut)`" should now be written
more as "`percflow(Pointcut)`".

==== cflow

In previous versions of AspectJ, the pointcut `cflow(Pointcut)` picked
out all join points in the cflow below the join points of `Pointcut`.
That is, it did not include the join points of `Pointcut`, only the join
points in their control flow.

As of version 0.8beta3, `cflowbelow(Pointcut)` has that behavior.
`cflow(Pointcut)` includes the join points of `Pointcut`.

In many cases, you may not care whether the points of `Pointcut` are
included or not, and so can safely leave `cflow(Pointcut)` pointcut
designators alone. However, if you use the idiom

[source, java]
----
Pointcut && ! cflow(Pointcut)
----

to capture the non-recursive entries to a particular pointcut, you will
definitely want to rewrite that as

[source, java]
----
Pointcut && ! cflowbelow(Pointcut)
----

==== cflowtop

The primitive pointcut designator `cflowtop(Pointcut)` has been removed
from the language, as it is expressible with `cflow` or `cflowbelow`.
All uses of `cflowtop(Pointcut)` can be rewritten as:

[source, java]
----
cflowbelow(Pointcut && ! cflowbelow(Pointcut))
----

Though in most cases the following is sufficient

[source, java]
----
cflow(Pointcut && ! cflowbelow(Pointcut))
----

[[abstractPointcuts]]
=== Overriding abstract pointcuts

In previous versions of AspectJ, a concrete aspect would implicitly
override all of its abstract pointcuts with an empty pointcut. AspectJ
0.8beta3 enforces the restriction that a concrete aspect may not have
any abstract pointcuts. Thus the following extension:

[source, java]
----
abstract aspect A {
  abstract pointcut pc();
}

aspect B {}
----

will no longer compile.

Adding the new empty pointcut designator

[source, java]
----
pointcut Id();
----

in the declaration of the concrete aspect fixes this problem.

[source, java]
----
abstract aspect A {
  abstract pointcut pc();
}

aspect B {
  pointcut pc();
}
----

[[recursiveAdvice]]
=== Limiting recursive advice

Previously, the compiler silently refrained from applying a piece of
advice to join points within its own advice body. So, for example, in

[source, java]
----
class C {
  static int i;
}

aspect A {
  before(): gets(int C.i) {
    System.err.println("C.i was " + C.i)
  }
}
----

The advice would trace all references of the static field `C.i` except
those in the body of the before.

The compiler has now removed this special case, and so running the above
example will now cause a `StackOverflowException` to be thrown.

Most cases of this error can be fixed by correctly specifying the
desired pointcut: In the above example, the intention is clearly not to
trace _all_ references of `C.i`, just those outside the aspect.

[source, java]
----
class C {
  static int i;
}

aspect A {
  before(): get(int C.i) && ! within(A) {
    System.err.println("C.i was " + C.i)
  }
}
----

In a very few cases, you may want the advice to be applicable to other
code in the aspect, but not in the particular piece of advice. In such
cases, you can pull the body of the advice into a method and restrict
away from that method (and away from calls to that method):

[source, java]
----
class C {
  static int i;
}

aspect A {
  public static int getCi() {
    return C.i;                          // will be traced
  }

  before(): get(int C.i) &&
    ! withincode(void A.traceCi()) &&
    ! call(void A.traceCi())
  {
    traceCi();
  }

  private void traceCi() {
    System.err.println("C.i was " + C.i) // will not be traced
  }
}
----

'''''

[[pre08b1]]
== Porting pre-0.8beta1 code

* xref:#introSyntax[Rewriting introductions]
* xref:#staticAdvice[Removing static advice]
* xref:#aspect-aspect[Fixing aspect-aspect inheritance]
* xref:#usingPrivateIntroduction[Using private introduction]

The following changes are only required when porting code written prior
to the 0.8beta1 release of AspectJ.

[[introSyntax]]
=== Rewriting introductions

==== Syntax

The syntax of introduction has changed. Porting most programs should
require some simple editing. Anywhere you have an introduction block

[source, java]
----
introduction GTN {
  // ...
}
----

simply move the `GTN` down into the introduction declarations and remove
the block.

For method introduction, place the `GTN` in front of the method name,
For field introduction, place the `GTN` in front of the field name, and
for constructor introduction, place the `GTN` in front of the `new`
identifier.

[source, java]
----
introduction Foo {
  public void doStuff() { this.doStuffLater(); }
  public int calorieCount = 3;
  public new(int x) { super(); calorieCount = x; }
}

// ==>

public void Foo.doStuff() { this.doStuffLater(); }
public int Foo.calorieCount= 3;
public Foo.new(int x) { super(); calorieCount = x; }
----

For implements and extends introduction, move the `GTN` in front of the
new identifiers `implements` or `extends`, and place that in a
`declare parents` form.

[source, java]
----
introduction Foo {
  implements Comparable;
  extends Goo;
}

// ==>

declare parents: Foo implements Comparable;
declare parents: Foo extends Goo;
----

In all cases, if the `GTN` is just a type name, it can be moved down on
its own. However, if the `GTN` uses any of `&&`, `||`, and `!`, it must
be parenthesized.

[source, java]
----
introduction subtypes(Foo) && !Goo {
  int x;
}

// ==>

int (Foo+ && !Goo).x;
----

==== Access

If you had an introduction that was referring to private or protected
members of the target class, this will no longer work. You will either
need to modify your code to avoid this accessibility issue, or you will
need to use the `privileged` modifier on the aspect that contains the
introduction.

[source, java]
----
class Counter {
  private int count = 2;
}

aspect ExposeCountersPrivates {
  introduction Counter {
    public int getCount() { return count; }
  }
}

// ==>

// in 0.8, only privileged aspects can expose a class's privates
privileged aspect ExposeCountersPrivates {
  public int Counter.getCount() { return count; }
}
----

If you have introduced private or package-protected members, you will
probably have to re-write some code. Most previous uses of introducing
privates can be improved by using private introduction instead.

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

aspect AddCounter {
  introduction C {
    private int count;
    public int getCount() { return count; }
  }
}

// ==>

aspect AddCounter {
  private int Counter.count;
  public int Counter.getCount() { return count; }
}
----

There is one case that we know of where the inability to perform the
introduction of private members makes 0.7 code difficult to port to 0.8.
If you were using the introduction of a `private void writeObject(..)`
or a `private void readObject(..)` method to interact with Java's
serialization API, you will need to come up with an alternative design.
Using some combination of `Externalizable`, `writeReplace(..)` and/or
`readResolve(..)` methods should allow you to port your code. If you
find this isn't the case, we'd like to hear about it.

If you were introducing either a protected member or a package-private
member onto a class in order to override a protected member that was
inherited from a superclass, you will have to make this introduction
public.

[[staticAdvice]]
=== Removing static advice

Static advice has been removed from the language. Now, every piece of
advice is non-static, meaning that it will run in the context of an
aspect instance.

If you have an aspect that only contains static advice, has no "of"
clause or is declared "of eachJVM()", and is not extended by another
aspect, simply remove the keyword "static" from all pieces of advice,
and make sure the aspect is not defined with the "abstract" modifier.

[source, java]
----
aspect Tracing {
  static before(): executions(* *(..)) {
    System.out.println("Got Here! " + thisJoinPoint);
  }
}

// ==>

aspect Tracing {
  before(): execution(* *(..)) {
    System.out.println("Got Here! " + thisJoinPoint);
  }
}
----

Otherwise, if you have an aspect contains both static and non-static
advice, is extended, or is "of eachObject(...)" or "of
eachcflowroot(...)", you should group your static advice together and
put it in a new aspect, possibly even an inner aspect.

[source, java]
----
aspect ComplexTracing of eachobject(cflow(executions(void Main.main(..)))) {
  static before(): executions(* *(..)) {
    System.out.println("Got Here! " + thisJoinPoint);
  }
  static after(): executions(* *(..)) {
    System.out.println("Returned! " + thisJoinPoint);
  }

  // some other dynamic advice, fields, etc
}

// ==>

aspect ComplexTracing of eachobject(cflow(executions(void Main.main(..)))) {
  static aspect AlwaysTracing {
    before(): execution(* *(..)) {
      System.out.println("Got Here! " + thisJoinPoint);
    }
    after(): execution(* *(..)) {
      System.out.println("Returned! " + thisJoinPoint);
    }
  }

  // some other dynamic advice, fields, etc
}
----

[[aspect-aspect]]
=== Fixing aspect-aspect inheritance

Aspects can now only extend abstract aspects. This restriction may cause
some redesign of aspect hierarchies. You will probably find that for the
majority of your code the most serious change this requires is to add an
explicit `abstract` modifier to a super-aspect that was already
implicitly abstract.

[source, java]
----
aspect BaseTracing {
  abstract pointcut traced();
  before(): traced() {
    System.out.println("Got Here! " + thisJoinPoint);
  }
}

// ==>

// make this abstract aspect explicitly abstract
abstract aspect BaseTracing {
  // ...
}
----

This change has also affected the `getAspect` static method. Now,
`getAspect` is only defined on non-abstract aspects. Previously, you
could call `getAspect` on an abstract superaspect and (sometimes) get an
instance of a subaspect back.

This pattern was used in the Spacewar example in the AspectJ
distribution. We had the class hierarchy

[source, text]
....
SpaceObject (abstract)
  |- Ship
  |- Bullet
  |- EnergyPellet
....

And the aspect hierarchy

[source, text]
....
SpaceObjectDA (abstract)
  |- ShipDA of eachobject(instanceof(Ship))
  |- BulletDA of eachobject(instanceof(Ship))
  |- EnergyPacketDA of eachobject(instanceof(Ship))
....

And we would call `SpaceObjectDA.getAspect(SpaceObject)` to access the
aspect associated with a ship, bullet, or energy pellet. This pattern
depended on the `SpaceObjectDA` aspect hierarchy exactly mirroring the
`SpaceObject` hierarchy, and being maintained that way.

A better way to implement this kind of design aspect is to use private
introduction, a new feature of AspectJ.

[[usingPrivateIntroduction]]
=== Using private introduction

A common pattern for AspectJ programs that need to associate some state
with every object of a particular type has been to use aspects that are
defined `of eachobject(instanceof(...))`. A prime example of this was
the `BoundPoint` aspect of the bean example: which needed to associate
each point with a `PropertyChangeSupport` object.

[source, java]
----
aspect BoundPoint of eachobject(instanceof(Point)) {

  java.beans.PropertyChangeSupport support = null;

  after() returning(Point p): receptions(p.new(..)){
    support = new PropertyChangeSupport(myPoint);
  }

  around(Point p) returns void: receptions(void p.set*(*)) {
    // code that uses support
  }
}
----

In the new version of AspectJ, a better way of accomplishing many of
these state association is to use privately introduced fields. Instead
of creating an aspect instance for every `Point` object, store the
`PropertyChagneSupport` object in the `Point` objects themselves.

[source, java]
----
aspect BoundPoint {
  private PropertyChangeSupport Point.support = new PropertyChangeSupport(this);

  void around(Point p): setters(p) {
    // code that uses p.support
  }
}
----

Just as in the past, the PropertyChangeSupport object is not accessable
to anyone but the aspect, but now less mechanism is needed.

There are times when changing aspects that are defined
`of eachobject(instanceof(...))` may not be reasonable. If the aspect
instance is stored or passed to other methods, then having a real
`of eachobject(instanceof(...))`, now written `perthis(this(...))`,
association may capture the crosscutting concern best.

'''''

[[pre07b11]]
== Porting pre-0.7beta11 code

* xref:#twoArgumentCalls[Removing two-argument calls]
* xref:#adviceInClasses[Removing advice from Class declarations]

The following changes are only required when porting code written prior
to the 0.7beta11 release of AspectJ.

[[twoArgumentCalls]]
=== Removing two-argument calls

In AspectJ 0.7beta11, the two-argument `calls` primitive pointcut
designator was deprecated. Removing these designators will require
different cases depending on what the original pointcut did.

==== Calls to static methods

For pointcuts denoting calls to particular static methods, such as

[source, java]
....
calls(String, static String valueOf(int)) // deprecated
....

the transformation is easy. Simply make the desired signature explicit.
Instead of catching all calls to any static method that happens to have
the signature `String valueOf(int)`, catch calls to that exact method
defined in the String class.

[source, java]
....
call(static String String.valueOf(int))
....

Pointcuts denoting calls to classes of static methods can also be
rewritten with these rules. For example,

[source, java]
....
calls(my.package.*, static * get*(..)) // deprecated
....

should now be written

[source, java]
....
call(static * my.package.*.get*(..))
....

==== Calls to non-static methods

Many pointcuts denoting calls to non-static methods can be fixed the
same way that those pointcuts denoting calls to static methods are
fixed. So,

[source, java]
....
calls(Thread, int getPriority()) // deprecated
....

which denotes all calls to nullary int methods named `getPriority` when
the called object is an instance of the `Thread` type, can almost always
be rewritten

[source, java]
....
call(int Thread.getPriority())
....

which denotes all calls to the nullary int `Thread.getPriority()`
method.

Expanding the signature picks out slightly different join points than
the original two-argument form. This won't matter for most programs, but
in some cases the differences may be noticable. In particular, the
expanded-signature form only picks out those calls where the called
object is statically typed to `Thread` when its `int getPriority()`
method is called. If you want to capture calls to the
`int Thread.getPriority()` method, regardless of how the called object
is statically typed, you shoud use the different translation:

[source, java]
....
call(int getPriority()) && target(Thread)
....

This will capture all call join points of methods with signature
`int Thread.getPriority()`.

It will also denote any join points if the Thread type does not define
(possibly abstractly) some `int getPriority()` method, though.

[[adviceInClasses]]
=== Removing advice from Class declarations

The simplest way to remove an advice declaration from a class is to
simply define the advice declaration in an inner aspect. So, instead of

[source, java]
....
class C {
  static before(): executions(C.new()) { /*...*/ } // deprecated
}
....

write

[source, java]
....
class C {
  static aspect ConstructionProtocol {
    static before(): executions(C.new()) { /*...*/ }
  }
}
....

If your advice doesn't refer to any inner classes or interfaces of C,
you can move the inner aspect out of the class entirely.

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

aspect ConstructionProtocol {
  static before(): execution(C.new()) { /*...*/ }
}
....

Your code will be clearer if you consider the purpose of each piece of
advice when you make this change. It may be that some of the advice
naturally belongs to another aspect, perhaps already existing. Or it may
be that some pieces of advice in a class are associated to one concern
and some to another; in which case more than aspect would be
appropriate.

'''''

[[pre07b10]]
== Porting pre-0.7beta10 code

* xref:#joinPoints[Changing access to thisJoinPoint]

The following changes are only required when porting code written prior
to the 0.7beta10 release of AspectJ.

[[joinPoints]]
=== Changing access to thisJoinPoint

In AspectJ 0.7beta10, access to the reflective object `thisJoinPoint`
substantially changed. The two parts of this change were the elimination
of the `runNext()` static method, and the use of an interface hierarchy
represent the join point object.

[[proceed]]
==== `thisJoinPoint.runNext()` to `proceed()`

The elimination of the `runNext()` static method requires almost no
porting work. An automatic replacement of the string

[source, java]
....
thisJoinPoint.runNext
....

with the string

[source, java]
....
proceed
....

will do the job. However, if any around advice used the identifier
`proceed` as a formal parameter or local variable, it must be renamed,
and if any aspect used it as a field, then references to the field in
around advice should be made explicit (prefixing the reference with the
aspect name or `this`, depending on whether the field is static or
not).

[[thisJoinPoint]]
==== Using `thisJoinPoint`

While access to reflective information through `thisJoinPoint` is more
powerful and regular through its interface hierarchy, the previous uses
must be rewritten. Changing your code will likely require manual
editing, but in doing so your code should get simpler and cleaner.

Many existing uses of the fields on join points can be re-written to use
one of:

* `thisJoinPoint.toString()`
* `thisJoinPoint.toShortString()`
* `thisJoinPoint.toLongString()`
* `thisJoinPoint.getSignature().toString()`
* `thisJoinPoint.getSignature().toShortString()`
* `thisJoinPoint.getSignature().toLongString()`

For example:

* `System.out.println(thisJoinPoint.className + "." + thisJoinPoint.methodName)`

can be replaced with

* `System.out.println(thisJoinPoint)` or
* `System.out.println(thisJoinPoint.getSignature().toShortString())`

with comparable behavior.

Accesses to the parameters field of join points should be changed as
follows. A field access like:

* `thisJoinPoint.parameters`

must be changed to:

* `thisJoinPoint.getArgs()`

Accesses to the methodName and className fields of join points that are
not suitable for replacement with a toString method, should be changed
as follows. Field accesses like:

* `thisJoinPoint.className`
* `thisJoinPoint.methodName`

must be changed to:

* `thisJoinPoint.getSignature().getDeclaringType().getName()`
* `thisJoinPoint.getSignature().getName()`

Accessses to the parameterNames and parameterTypes fields of join
points, that are not suitable for conversion to one of the toString()
methods should be changed as follows. Field access like:

* `thisJoinPoint.parameterNames`
* `thisJoinPoint.parameterTypes`

must be changed to:

* `((CodeSignature)thisJoinPoint.getSignature()).getParameterNames()`
* `((CodeSignature)thisJoinPoint.getSignature()).getParameterTypes()`
