1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html> <head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Language" content="en-us">
<title>AspectJ 1.0.6 Reference - Porting Notes</title>
</head>
<body>
<div align=right><small>
© Copyright 1998-2002 Palo Alto Research Center Incorporated.
All rights reserved.
</small></div>
<h1>Porting Notes</h1>
<ul>
<li><a href="#pre-1.0.4">Pre-1.0.4 code</a></li>
<li><a href="#pre-1.0rc1">Pre-1.0rc1 code</a></li>
<li><a href="#pre-1.0beta1">Pre-1.0beta1 code</a></li>
<li><a href="#pre-1.0alpha1">Pre-1.0alpha1 code</a>
</li>
<li><a href="#pre08b3">Pre-0.8beta3 code</a></li>
<li><a href="#pre08b1">Pre-0.8beta1 code</a></li>
<li><a href="#pre07b11">Pre-0.7beta11 code</a></li>
<li><a href="#pre07b10">Pre-0.7beta10 code</a></li>
</ul>
<h2><a name="pre-1.0.4">Porting pre-1.0.4 code</a></h2>
<p>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.
</p>
<p> The main change that was made was of after returning advice for
constructor execution join points. Previously, this advice was legal:
</p>
<PRE>
after() returning (Foo f): execution(Foo.new(..)) { ... }
</PRE>
<p> 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,
<code>this</code> 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. </p>
<PRE>
after(Foo f) returning: this(f) && execution(Foo.new(..)) { ... }
</PRE>
<p> In compilers prior to 1.0.4, the following advice could pick out
join points
</p>
<PRE>
after() returning (String s): call(void foo()) { ... }
</PRE>
<p> This is no longer picked out. This pattern was most commonly used
in highly polymorphic contexts, such as
</p>
<PRE>
after() returning (String s): call(* foo()) { ... }
</PRE>
<p> If you want to capture all calls, binding null objects for those
that would otherwise have no value, you must use the
<code>Object</code> type.
</p>
<PRE>
after() returning (Object o): call(* foo()) { ... }
</PRE>
<p> Uses of both of these forms are highleted with compiler warnings
in the 1.0.4 compiler.
</p>
<hr />
<h2><a name="pre-1.0rc1">Porting pre-1.0rc1 code</a></h2>
<p> Aspects can no longer be declared to implement the
<code>Serializable</code> or <code>Cloneable</code> 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.
</p>
<hr />
<h2><a name="pre-1.0beta1">Porting pre-1.0beta1 code</a></h2>
<p> The <code>static</code> modifier is no longer allowed on pointcut
declarations anywhere. Porting is simple; just remove the static
declarations when you find them.
</p>
<p> Also, though the <code>returns</code> 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 <code>returns</code> modifier when the compiler
complains about it.
</p>
<hr />
<h2><a name="pre-1.0alpha1">Porting pre-1.0alpha1 code </a></h2>
<p> The release of AspectJ 1.0alpha1 involved sweeping cleanups of the
language to bring it to 1.0 status. </p>
<ul>
<li><a href="#1.0a1-pointcuts">Pointcuts</a></li>
<li><a href="#1.0a1-type-patterns">Type patterns</a></li>
<li><a href="#1.0a1-advice">Advice</a></li>
<li><a href="#1.0a1-introduction-and-static">Introduction and
static crosscutting</a></li>
<li><a href="#1.0a1-aspects">Aspects</a></li>
</ul>
<h3><a name="1.0a1-pointcuts">Pointcuts</a></h3>
<h4><a name="1.0a1-plural-to-singular">Removing the "s" from pointcuts</a></h4>
<p> 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
</p>
<blockquote>calls executions gets sets handlers initializations
staticinitializations</blockquote>
<p> Just take off the final "s", to make one of
</p>
<blockquote>call execution get set handler initialization
staticinitialization</blockquote>
<p> Often, there will be other changes you should make for each of
these pointcuts, but as for the name, just take off the "s". </p>
<p> 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. </p>
<PRE>
pointcut sort(Collection set): calls(void addAll(set));
==>
pointcut sort(Collection mySet): call(void addAll(mySet));
</PRE>
<p> While converting to use singular nouns for the primitive
pointcuts, you may also want to remove the "s" from your user-defined
pointcuts. </p>
<PRE>
pointcut publicCalls(): calls(public * *(..));
==>
pointcut publicCall(): call(public * *(..));
</PRE>
<p> Of course, your naming conventions are your own, but throughout
these porting notes we will be making these changes in our example
ports. </p>
<h4><a name="1.0a1-remove-receptions">Removing the receptions pointcut</a></h4>
<p> 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. </p>
<p> Changing code that used the <code>receptions</code> pointcut should be
fairly straightforward, depending on whether the pointcut exposed state or
not. </p>
<h5>Not exposing state</h5>
<p> Receptions pointcuts that did not expose state can simply be
replaced by the new <code>call</code> and <code>target</code> pointcuts:</p>
<PRE>
receptions(void Foo.m())
==>
target(Foo) && call(void m())
</PRE>
<h5>Exposing state</h5>
<p> 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 <code>target</code> pointcut to expose
the receiving object. </p>
<PRE>
pointcut fooCallees(Foo f): receptions(void f.m());
==>
pointcut fooCallee(Foo f): target(f) && call(void m());
</PRE>
<p> Like <a href="#1.0a1-fixing-state-access">other pointcuts</a>,
receptions pointcuts that exposed one or more arguments should be
rewritten to use the <code>args</code> pointcut: </p>
<PRE>
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));
</PRE>
<h5>Constructor receptions</h5>
<p> There are two issues with constructor receptions in
particular. </p>
<p>Like <a href="#1.0a1-constructor-calls">constructor calls</a>,
constructor receptions pointcuts had a dynamic character, in that
<code>receptions(C.new())</code> would capture constructions of not
only C classes, but also of classes that extended C. </p>
<p> If you want this behaviour, then you need to use the new subtypes
operator, +, on the type name in question. So,
</p>
<PRE>
receptions(C.new())
==>
call(C+.new())
</PRE>
<p>Also like <a href="#1.0a1-constructor-calls">constructor calls</a>,
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 <code>after returning</code>
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 </p>
<PRE>
aspect Singleton {
private C theC = null;
C around(): call(C.new(..)) {
if (c == null) theC = proceed();
return theC;
}
}
</PRE>
<p> but it does require some rewriting. The new object can be
accessed as the return value in after returning advice. So, </p>
<PRE>
after(Point p) returning (): receptions(p.new(int, int)) { ... }
==>
after() returning (Point p): call(Point+.new(int, int)) { ... }
</PRE>
<h4><a name="1.0a1-fixing-state-access">Fixing state access</a></h4>
<p> 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 </p>
<blockquote>args this target</blockquote>
<p> which pick out argument values, the currently executing object,
and the target object of a method call or field operation,
respectively. </p>
<h5>Using args</h5>
<p> 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 <code>args</code> pointcut.
</p>
<PRE>
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));
</PRE>
<PRE>
pointcut stringPassers(String s): receptions(void Foo.m(s, ..));
==>
pointcut stringPasser(String s): args(s, ..) && call(void Foo.m(String, ..));
</PRE>
<h5>Rewriting calls</h5>
<p> If a calls pointcut exposed the the receiving object, such as </p>
<PRE>
pointcut fooCallees(Foo f): calls(void f.m());
</PRE>
<p> then the new version should use the <code>target</code> pointcut
to get at that object
</p>
<PRE>
pointcut fooCallee(Foo f): target(f) && call(void Foo.m());
</PRE>
<p> 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 <code>target</code>
pointcut to expose the value, you should use the normal <code>after
returning</code> mechanism:
</p>
<PRE>
after(Point p) returning (): calls(p.new(int, int)) { ... }
==>
after() returning (Point p): call(Point+.new(int, int)) { ... }
</PRE>
<h5>Rewriting gets and sets</h5>
<p> Exposing the target object of a <code>gets</code> or
<code>sets</code> pointcut should be done the same way it was for
<code>calls</code> pointcuts, with the new <code>target</code>
pointcut. </p>
<PRE>
before(Frame f): gets(Color f.color) { ... }
==>
before(Frame f): target(f) && get(Color Frame.color) { ... }
</PRE>
<PRE>
before(Frame f): sets(Color f.color) { ... }
==>
before(Frame f): target(f) && set(Color Frame.color) { ... }
</PRE>
<p> 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. </p>
<PRE>
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;
...
}
}
</PRE>
<p> The same can be done for <code>around</code> advice. However, the
only way to port after advice that needs the old value is to convert
it to around advice.
</p>
<PRE>
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);
...
}
}
</PRE>
<p> When porting <code>sets</code> 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 <code>args</code> pointcut.
All set join points are assumed to have exactly one argument, which
holds the new value. So, </p>
<PRE>
after(Color newColor): sets(Color Frame.color)[][newColor] { ... }
==>
after(Color newColor): args(newColor) && set(Color Frame.color) { ... }
</PRE>
<p> Also, if the field was declared private, in order to get at its
old value the aspect must be declared <code>privileged</code>.
</p>
<h5>Rewriting handlers</h5>
<p> The value of the exception at an exception handler join point is
now accessed through the <code>args</code> pointcut; all exception
handler join points are treated as having exactly one argument, the
exception value. So,
</p>
<PRE>
before(NotFoundException e): handlers(e) { ... }
==>
before(NotFoundException e): args(e) && handler(NotFoundException) { ... }
</PRE>
<h5>Rewriting within</h5>
<p> The <code>within</code> 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
<code>this</code> pointcut will capture what previous implementations
did: </p>
<PRE>
pointcut usesFoo(Foo f): within(f);
==>
pointcut usesFoo(Foo f): this(f) && within(Foo);
</PRE>
<h4><a name="1.0a1-no-subs-in-sigs">Understanding signatures</a></h4>
<p> Now that we have <code>this</code>, <code>target</code>, and
<code>args</code> pointcuts, all of our signatures are composed of
just types, names, and wildcards; there are no more parameters.
</p>
<p> Also, now that we have the <code>+</code> wildcard to pick out
<a href="#1.0a1-subtypes-to-plus">subtypes</a>, we can make signature
matching much more uniform.</p>
<p> Previously, some signatures matched based on subtypes, some based
on instanceof, and some exactly. Now, we have made all signatures
match exactly.
</p>
<p> What does this mean for your program? Well, it means that you
may have to add <code>+</code> to some of your signatures, depending
on what you meant them to match.
</p>
<p> For example, the pointcut
</p>
<pre>
calls(void m(Object))
</pre>
<p> 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 </p>
<pre>
call(void m(Object+))
</pre>
<h4><a name="1.0a1-fixing-instanceof">Removing the instanceof pointcut</a></h4>
<p> The intanceof pointcut has been split into two different
pointcuts, <code>this</code> and <code>target</code>. </p>
<p> Typically, the instanceof pointcut would only exist in a compound
pointcut, composed (with <CODE>&&</CODE>) with another
pointcut. If the other pointcut was a <code>receptions</code>
pointcut, then <code>instanceof</code> should be converted to
<code>target</code> (and <code>receptions</code> converted to
<code>call</code>). So, </p>
<PRE>
pointcut stateChanges(Subject s):
instanceof(s) && receptions(void Button.click());
==>
pointcut stateChange(Subject s):
target(s) && call(void Button.click());
</PRE>
<p> In all other cases, <code>instanceof</code> referred to the
currently executing object, and so should be converted into
<code>this</code></p>
<PRE>
before(Point p): instanceof(p) && executions(* makePolar(..)) { ... }
==>
before(Point p): this(p) && execution(* makePolar(..)) { ... }
</PRE>
<PRE>
pointcut setup(Client c): instanceof(c) && calls(Remote Naming.lookup(String));
==>
pointcut setup(Client c): this(c) && calls(Remote Naming.lookup(String));
</PRE>
<h4><a name="1.0a1-initializations">Rewriting the initializations pointcut</a></h4>
<p> 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. </p>
<p> The old behaviour can be recovered with a simple rewrite.
</p>
<PRE>
initializations(A)
==>
initialization(A.new(..)) && !execution(A.new(..))
</PRE>
<h4><a name="1.0a1-constructor-calls">Understanding constructor calls</a></h4>
<p> Previously, constructor call join points were matched by subtypes,
so <code>calls(Foo.new())</code> would match both calls to create new
<code>Foo</code> objects, and new <code>SubFoo</code> objects. The
new <code>call</code> pointcut designator matches types exactly, so if
you want the old behaviour, you should write
<code>call(Foo+.new())</code>. </p>
<p> Similarly, constructor execution join points were matched by
subtypes. So the old <code>executions(Foo.new())</code> is now
represented by <code>execution(Foo+.new())</code>.
</p>
<p> In both of these cases, think before using the + operator; it may
be that you didn't intend subtype matching in the first place. </p>
<h4><a name="1.0a1-hasaspect">Removing the hasaspect pointcut</a></h4>
<p> The <code>hasaspect</code> pointcut is no longer defined, but you
can get the same behaviour using the new <code>if</code> pointcut.
</p>
<p> If the aspect whose presense you are checking for was defined
<code>of eachcflow</code>, <code>of eachcflowbelow</code>, or, more
unlikely, <code>of eachJVM()</code>, then the conversion is simple:
</p>
<PRE>
hasaspect(A)
==>
if(A.hasAspect())
</PRE>
<p> If the aspect was defined <code>of eachobject</code>, then you
will have to expose the current object in your pointcut or advice
parameters: </p>
<PRE>
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)) ... ;
</PRE>
<p> If you were using the <code>hasaspect</code> pointcut to expose
the state of the aspect, then you can get the same state by using
<code>A.aspectOf()</code> in the body of the advice. For example, if
the aspect A were defined <code>of eachcflow</code>, then
</p>
<PRE>
before(A myA): hasaspect(myA) {
myA.checkStatus();
}
==>
before(): if(A.hasAspect()) {
A myA = A.aspectOf();
myA.checkStatus();
}
</PRE>
<h4><a name="1.0a1-withinall">Removing the withinall pointcut</a></h4>
<p> The withinall poinctut is no longer defined. You can use a
combination of within and the <a href="#1.0a1-subtypes-to-plus">new
subtypes operator</a>, +, instead. You'll save two characters and be
using a simpler and more orthogonal language. </p>
<PRE>
withinall(Foo)
==>
within(Foo+)
</PRE>
<h4><a name="1.0a1-user-defined-returns">Removing returns modifier from pointcuts</a></h4>
<p>The returns keyword is no longer necessary for user-defined
pointcuts. Simply remove it when you find it. </p>
<PRE>
pointcut publicIntCalls() returns int: calls(public int *(..));
==>
pointcut publicIntCall(): call(public int *(..));
</PRE>
<h4><a name="1.0a1-static-pointcuts">Making some pointcuts static</a></h4>
<p> In Java, only static members may be accessed by their declaring
type name, like the static method <code>Math.max()</code> can be
accessed. </p>
<p> Pointcuts now have that property too. Pointcuts may be declared
to be static, in which case they can be accessed like
<code>MyAspect.move()</code>, or they can be left non-static, in which
case they can be overridden by a subaspect. </p>
<p> In addition, while pointcuts can still be defined in classes, only
<code>static</code> pointcuts can be defined in classes. </p>
<p> Porting should be straightforward; just make all your pointcuts in
classes <code>static</code>, and make any pointcut with a qualified
reference static.
</p>
<h3><a name="1.0a1-type-patterns">Type patterns</a></h3>
<h4><a name="1.0a1-new-wildcards">Understanding * and .. in type patterns</a></h4>
<p> 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. </p>
<p> In AspectJ 1.0, both of these wildcards are defined simply, and
textually:
</p>
<ul>
<li> The * wildcard alone matches all types. </li>
<li> The * wildcard in a pattern matches zero or more characters,
but will not match "." </li>
<li> The .. wildcard matches any sequence of characters that begins
and ends with "." </li>
</ul>
<p> That's it.
</p>
<p> 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
<code>*..*</code>, which used to match all types, you can replace it with the
much simpler *. </p>
<PRE>
pointcut unaryVoidMethods(): call(void *(*..*));
==>
pointcut unaryVoidMethod(): call(void *(*));
</PRE>
<h4><a name="1.0a1-subtypes-to-plus">Fixing subtypes in introduction</a></h4>
<p> The new + operator is used to normalize the many places you want
to use subtypes of some types.
</p>
<p> In introduction forms, you will need to replace
<code>subtypes(<var>TypePattern</var>)</code> type patterns with the
new subtype operator, +. In the case where you wrote
<code>subtypes(Foo)</code>, i.e., the subtypes of a single type,
simply replace this with <code>Foo+</code>. Otherwise, use the
+ operator as appropriate in <var>TypePattern</var>. </p>
<PRE>
public void (subtypes(Target0 || Target1)).accept(Visitor v) {
v.visit(this);
}
==>
public void (Target0+ || Target1+).accept(Visitor v) {
v.visit(this);
}
</PRE>
<h3><a name="1.0a1-advice">Advice</a></h3>
<h4><a name="1.0a1-around-returns">Moving the return type of around</a></h4>
<p> The returns keyword is no longer used for around advice. Instead,
the return type is declared as it is for methods. So, </p>
<PRE>
around(Point p) returns void: setters(p) { ... }
==>
void around(Point p): setter(p) { ... }
</PRE>
<h4><a name="1.0a1-around-throws">Adding a throws clause to around</a></h4>
<p> Around advice must now declare the checked exceptions it throws
with a <code>throws</code> clause, much like a method.
</p>
<PRE>
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;
}
</PRE>
<h4><a name="1.0a1-advice-precedence">Understanding advice precedence</a></h4>
<p> 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
<code>before</code> and <code>around</code> advice, but was the cause
of confusion (even among the AspectJ designers, more than once) for
<code>after</code> advice, as it seemed backward. </p>
<p> In addition, advice was ordered by kind, in that around advice
always surrounded before and after advice.
</p>
<p> AspectJ 1.0 has changed this; precedence for <code>after</code>
advice is inverted, and advice is no longer ordered by kind.
</p>
<p>This won't matter to you unless you write pieces of advice in the
same aspect that apply to the same join point. </p>
<p>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
<code>after</code> advice, then the second one has precedence.
Otherwise, the first does. </p>
<p> This allows interesting advice interaction. In the following
advice, for example, the <code>after throwing</code> advice will catch
the exception thrown by the <code>before</code> advice </p>
<PRE>
aspect A {
before(): call(void main(..)) {
throw new RuntimeException();
}
after() throwing(RuntimeException e): call(void main(..)) {
System.err.println("caught you!");
}
}
</PRE>
<p> But reversing the order will give the <code>before</code> advice
more precedence, making its exception uncatchable by the <code>after
throwing</code> advice
</p>
<PRE>
aspect A {
after() throwing(RuntimeException e): call(void main(..)) {
System.err.println("missed you!");
}
before(): call(void main(..)) {
throw new RuntimeException();
}
}
</PRE>
<p> Advice in <em>different</em> aspects is ordered by the normal aspect
precedence rules of subtyping and the <code>dominates</code> modifier.
</p>
<h4><a name="1.0a1-after-returning">Fixing after returning</a></h4>
<p> 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, </p>
<pre>
after(<var>Formals</var>) returning (): <var>Pointcut</var> { ... }
==>
after(<var>Formals</var>) returning: <var>Pointcut</var> { ... }
</pre>
<p> The same syntax is now available for after throwing advice, in
case you do not care what <code>Throwable</code> is thrown.
</p>
<pre>
after(<var>Formals</var>) throwing: <var>Pointcut</var> { ... }
</pre>
<h4><a name="1.0a1-this-static-join-point">Renaming thisStaticJoinPoint</a></h4>
<p> <code>thisStaticJoinPoint</code> has been renamed
<code>thisJoinPointStaticPart</code>, to reflect that it is now
exactly the static part of <code>thisJoinPoint</code>: It will return
the same object as <code>thisJoinPoint.getStaticPart()</code>. </p>
<h4><a name="1.0a1-this-join-point">Converting access to thisJoinPoint</a></h4>
<p> The <code>JoinPoint</code> object hierarchy has been folded into a
single class, <code>org.aspectj.lang.JoinPoint</code>. A common
pattern in logging, for example, was </p>
<pre>
before() executions(* myMethod()) {
ExecutionJoinPoint jp = (ExecutionJoinPoint)thisJoinPoint;
CodeSignature jp = (CodeSignature)jp.getSignature();
System.err.println(jp.getParameters());
System.err.println(jp.getParameterNames());
}
</pre>
<p> While there is still a rich hierarchy for signatures, there is
only one <code>JoinPoint</code> type, so this can be rewritten as:
</p>
<pre>
before() executions(* myMethod()) {
JoinPoint jp = thisJoinPoint;
CodeSignature jp = (CodeSignature)jp.getSignature();
System.err.println(jp.getArgs());
System.err.println(jp.getParameterNames());
}
</pre>
<p> Some of the method names of <code>JoinPoint</code> have been
reorganized, as well. </p>
<h3><a name="1.0a1-introduction-and-static">Introduction and static crosscutting</a></h3>
<h4><a name="1.0a1-plus-implements-extends">Removing +implements and +extends</a></h4>
<p> The keywords <code>+implements</code> and <code>+extends</code> no
longer exist. Instead, AspectJ uses the <code>declare</code>
form for exactly the same functionality. </p>
<PRE>
Point +implements Serializable;
=>
declare parents: Point implements Serializable;
</PRE>
<PRE>
MyButton +extends ButtonAdaptor;
=>
declare parents: MyButton extends ButtonAdaptor;
</PRE>
<h4><a name="1.0a1-now-use-soft">Using declare soft</a></h4>
<p> Around advice advice no longer effects the static exception
checking of Java. This means that the following code previously
compiled: </p>
<PRE>
class C {
void noExceptionDeclared() {
exceptionDeclared();
}
void exceptionDeclared() throws IOException {}
}
aspect A {
around(): call(void C.exceptionDeclared()) {
try { proceed(); }
catch (IOException e) {}
}
}
</PRE>
<p> even though the class C is not compilable on its own (because
noExceptionDeclared actually throws an Exception).
</p>
<p> 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. </p>
<pre>
declare soft: <var>ExceptionType</var>: <var>Pointcut</var>;
</pre>
<p> 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:
</p>
<PRE>
declare soft: IOException:
call(void C.exceptionDeclared()) &&
withincode(void noExceptionDeclared());
</PRE>
<h3><a name="1.0a1-aspects">Aspects</a></h3>
<p> The syntax of "of each" modifiers has changed. For <code>of
eachcflow</code> and <code>of eachcflowbelow</code>, you can simply
replace "of each" with "per". So, </p>
<PRE>
aspect A of eachcflow(...) { ... }
==>
aspect A percflow(...) { ... }
</PRE>
<p> If you have any aspects defined <code>of eachJVM()</code>, then
you should either remove that declaration entirely (because this is
the default behaviour), or replace the <code>of eachJVM()</code>
declaration with an <code>issingleton</code> declaration.
</p>
<PRE>
aspect of eachJVM() { ... }
==>
aspect A { ... }
or
aspect A issingleton { ... }
</PRE>
<p> The <code>of eachobject(<var>Pointcut</var>)</code> modifier has
been split into two different forms, <code>of
perthis(<var>Pointcut</var>)</code> and <code>of
pertarget(<var>Pointcut</var>)</code>. Which one you replace with
depends on the <var>Pointcut</var> you use.
</p>
<p> If you use a pointcut that picked out reception join points, then
use <code>pertarget</code>, and rewrite the pointcut to pick out call
join points. So
</p>
<PRE>
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))) {
...
}
</PRE>
<p> Otherwise, in most cases, use <code>perthis</code>. When you
convert, remember the meaning of each of these modifiers.
<code>perthis(<var>Pointcut</var>)</code> indicates that an instance
of the aspect should be associated with every object that is
<code>this</code> at each of the join points picked out by
<var>Pointcut</var>, while <code>pertarget(<var>Pointcut</var>)</code>
associates with every object that is the target object at such join
points. </p>
<!-- ==================================== -->
<!-- ==================================== -->
<!-- ==================================== -->
<hr />
<h2><a name="pre08b3">Porting pre-0.8beta3 code</a></h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="#cflowTerminology">Changing cflow terminology</a></li>
<li><a href="#abstractPointcuts">Overriding abstract pointcuts</a></li>
<li><a href="#recursiveAdvice">Limiting recursive advice</a></li>
</ul>
<p>The following changes are only required when porting code written
prior to the 0.8beta3 release of AspectJ.</p>
<h3><a name="cflowTerminology">Changing cflow terminology</a></h3>
<p> Changing pre-0.8beta3 code that uses AspectJ's control-flow-based
features only requires rewriting occurrences of
<code>eachcflowroot</code>, <code>cflow</code>, and
<code>cflowtop</code>. No editing of other aspect code is
necessary.</p>
<h4>eachcflowroot</h4>
<p> The aspect modifier "<code>of
eachcflowroot(<var>Pointcut</var>)</code>" should now be written more
as "<code>percflow(<var>Pointcut</var>)</code>". </p>
<h4>cflow</h4>
<p> In previous versions of AspectJ, the pointcut
<code>cflow(<var>Pointcut</var>)</code> picked out all join points in
the cflow below the join points of <var>Pointcut</var>. That is, it
did not include the join points of <var>Pointcut</var>, only the join
points in their control flow.
</p>
<p> As of version 0.8beta3,
<code>cflowbelow(<var>Pointcut</var>)</code> has that behavior.
<code>cflow(<var>Pointcut</var>)</code> includes the join points of
<var>Pointcut</var>. </p>
<p> In many cases, you may not care whether the points of
<var>Pointcut</var> are included or not, and so can safely leave
<code>cflow(<var>Pointcut</var>)</code> pointcut designators alone.
However, if you use the idiom
</p>
<pre class="codeindent">
<var>Pointcut</var> && ! cflow(<var>Pointcut</var>)
</pre>
<p> to capture the non-recursive entries to a particular pointcut, you
will definitely want to rewrite that as
</p>
<pre class="codeindent">
<var>Pointcut</var> && ! cflowbelow(<var>Pointcut</var>)
</pre>
<h4>cflowtop</h4>
<p> The primitive pointcut designator
<code>cflowtop(<var>Pointcut</var>)</code> has been removed from the
language, as it is expressible with <code>cflow</code> or
<code>cflowbelow</code>. All uses of
<code>cflowtop(<var>Pointcut</var>)</code> can be rewritten as:
</p>
<pre class="codeindent">
cflowbelow(<var>Pointcut</var> && ! cflowbelow(<var>Pointcut</var>))
</pre>
<p> Though in most cases the following is sufficient
</p>
<pre class="codeindent">
cflow(<var>Pointcut</var> && ! cflowbelow(<var>Pointcut</var>))
</pre>
<h3><a name="abstractPointcuts">Overriding abstract pointcuts</a></h3>
<p> 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:</p>
<pre class="codeindent">
abstract aspect A {
abstract pointcut pc();
}
aspect B {}
</pre>
<p> will no longer compile.
</p>
<p> Adding the new empty pointcut designator
</p>
<pre class="codeindent">
pointcut <var>Id</var>();
</pre>
<p> in the declaration of the concrete aspect fixes this problem.
</p>
<pre class="codeindent">
abstract aspect A {
abstract pointcut pc();
}
aspect B {
pointcut pc();
}
</pre>
<h3><a name="recursiveAdvice">Limiting recursive advice</a></h3>
<p> Previously, the compiler silently refrained from applying a piece
of advice to join points within its own advice body. So, for example,
in </p>
<pre class="codeindent">
class C {
static int i;
}
aspect A {
before(): gets(int C.i) {
System.err.println("C.i was " + C.i)
}
}
</pre>
<p> The advice would trace all references of the static field
<code>C.i</code> except those in the body of the before. </p>
<p> The compiler has now removed this special case, and so running the
above example will now cause a <code>StackOverflowException</code> to
be thrown. </p>
<p> 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 <em>all</em> references of <code>C.i</code>, just those
outside the aspect.
</p>
<pre class="codeindent">
class C {
static int i;
}
aspect A {
before(): get(int C.i) && ! within(A) {
System.err.println("C.i was " + C.i)
}
}
</pre>
<p> 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):
</p>
<pre class="codeindent">
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
}
}
</pre>
<!-- ============================== -->
<hr />
<h2><a name="pre08b1">Porting pre-0.8beta1 code</a></h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="#introSyntax">Rewriting introductions</a></li>
<li><a href="#staticAdvice">Removing static advice</a></li>
<li><a href="#aspect-aspect">Fixing aspect-aspect inheritance</a></li>
<li><a href="#usingPrivateIntroduction">Using private introduction</a></li>
</ul>
<p>The following changes are only required when porting code written
prior to the 0.8beta1 release of AspectJ.</p>
<h3><a name="introSyntax">Rewriting introductions</a></h3>
<h4>Syntax</h4>
<p> The syntax of introduction has changed. Porting most programs
should require some simple editing. Anywhere you have an introduction
block</p>
<pre class="codeindent">
introduction <var>GTN</var> {
...
}
</pre>
<p> simply move the <var>GTN</var> down into the introduction
declarations and remove the block.</p>
<p>For method introduction, place the <var>GTN</var> in front of the
method name, For field introduction, place the <var>GTN</var> in front
of the field name, and for constructor introduction, place the
<var>GTN</var> in front of the <code>new</code> identifier. </p>
<pre class="codeindent">
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; }
</pre>
<p> For implements and extends introduction, move the <var>GTN</var>
in front of the new identifiers <code>implements</code> or
<code>extends</code>, and place that in a <code>declare parents</code>
form.
</p>
<pre class="codeindent">
introduction Foo {
implements Comparable;
extends Goo;
}
==>
declare parents: Foo implements Comparable;
declare parents: Foo extends Goo;
</pre>
<p> In all cases, if the <var>GTN</var> is just a type name, it can be
moved down on its own. However, if the <var>GTN</var> uses any of
<CODE>&&</CODE>, <code>||</code>, and <code>!</code>, it must
be parenthesized. </p>
<pre class="codeindent">
introduction subtypes(Foo) && !Goo {
int x;
}
==>
int (Foo+ && !Goo).x;
</pre>
<h4>Access</h4>
<p>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 <code>privileged</code> modifier on
the aspect that contains the introduction.</p>
<pre class="codeindent">
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; }
}
</pre>
<p> 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.</p>
<pre class="codeindent">
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; }
}
</pre>
<p> 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 <code>private
void writeObject(..)</code> or a <code>private void
readObject(..)</code> method to interact with Java's serialization
API, you will need to come up with an alternative design. Using some
combination of <code>Externalizable</code>,
<code>writeReplace(..)</code> and/or <code>readResolve(..)</code>
methods should allow you to port your code. If you find this isn't
the case, we'd like to hear about it.
<p> 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. <p>
<h3><a name="staticAdvice">Removing static advice</a></h3>
<p> 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.
</p>
<p> 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. </p>
<pre class="codeindent">
aspect Tracing {
static before(): executions(* *(..)) {
System.out.println("Got Here! " + thisJoinPoint);
}
}
==>
aspect Tracing {
before(): execution(* *(..)) {
System.out.println("Got Here! " + thisJoinPoint);
}
}
</pre>
<p> 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. </p>
<pre class="codeindent">
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
}
</pre>
<h3><a name="aspect-aspect">Fixing aspect-aspect inheritance</a></h3>
<p> 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 <code>abstract</code> modifier to a
super-aspect that was already implicitly abstract.</p>
<pre class="codeindent">
aspect BaseTracing {
abstract pointcut traced();
before(): traced() {
System.out.println("Got Here! " + thisJoinPoint);
}
}
==>
// make this abstract aspect explicitly abstract
abstract aspect BaseTracing {
...
}
</pre>
<p> This change has also affected the <code>getAspect</code> static
method. Now, <code>getAspect</code> is only defined on non-abstract
aspects. Previously, you could call <code>getAspect</code> on an
abstract superaspect and (sometimes) get an instance of a subaspect
back. </p>
<p>This pattern was used in the Spacewar example in the AspectJ
distribution. We had the class hierarchy </p>
<pre>
SpaceObject (abstract)
|- Ship
|- Bullet
|- EnergyPellet
</pre>
<p> And the aspect hierarchy
</p>
<pre>
SpaceObjectDA (abstract)
|- ShipDA of eachobject(instanceof(Ship))
|- BulletDA of eachobject(instanceof(Ship))
|- EnergyPacketDA of eachobject(instanceof(Ship))
</pre>
<p> And we would call <code>SpaceObjectDA.getAspect(SpaceObject)</code> to access
the aspect associated with a ship, bullet, or energy pellet. This
pattern depended on the <code>SpaceObjectDA</code> aspect hierarchy
exactly mirroring the <code>SpaceObject</code> hierarchy, and being
maintained that way. </p>
<p> A better way to implement this kind of design aspect is to use
private introduction, a new feature of AspectJ.
</p>
<h3><a name="usingPrivateIntroduction">Using private introduction</a></h3>
<p> 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 <code>of eachobject(instanceof(...))</code>. A prime
example of this was the <code>BoundPoint</code> aspect of the bean
example: which needed to associate each point with a
<code>PropertyChangeSupport</code> object. </p>
<pre class="codeindent">
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
}
}
</pre>
<p> 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 <code>Point</code>
object, store the <code>PropertyChagneSupport</code> object in the
<code>Point</code> objects themselves.
</p>
<pre class="codeindent">
aspect BoundPoint {
private PropertyChangeSupport Point.support = new PropertyChangeSupport(this);
void around(Point p): setters(p) {
// code that uses p.support
}
}
</pre>
<p> Just as in the past, the PropertyChangeSupport object is not
accessable to anyone but the aspect, but now less mechanism is needed.
</p>
<p> There are times when changing aspects that are defined <code>of
eachobject(instanceof(...))</code> may not be reasonable. If the
aspect instance is stored or passed to other methods, then having a
real <code>of eachobject(instanceof(...))</code>, now written
<code>perthis(this(...))</code>, association may capture the
crosscutting concern best. </p>
<!-- ============================== -->
<hr />
<h2><a name="pre07b11">Porting pre-0.7beta11 code</a></h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="#twoArgumentCalls">Removing two-argument calls</a></li>
<li><a href="#adviceInClasses">Removing advice from Class declarations</a></li>
</ul>
<p>The following changes are only required when porting code written
prior to the 0.7beta11 release of AspectJ.</p>
<h3><a name="twoArgumentCalls">Removing two-argument calls</a></h3>
<p> In AspectJ 0.7beta11, the two-argument <code>calls</code>
primitive pointcut designator was deprecated. Removing these
designators will require different cases depending on what the
original pointcut did. </p>
<h4>Calls to static methods</h4>
<p> For pointcuts denoting calls to particular static methods, such as
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
calls(String, static String valueOf(int)) // deprecated
</pre></blockquote>
<p> 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 <code>String valueOf(int)</code>, catch
calls to that exact method defined in the String class. </p>
<blockquote><pre>
call(static String String.valueOf(int))
</pre></blockquote>
<p> Pointcuts denoting calls to classes of static methods can also be
rewritten with these rules. For example, </p>
<blockquote><pre>
calls(my.package.*, static * get*(..)) // deprecated
</pre></blockquote>
<p> should now be written </p>
<blockquote><pre>
call(static * my.package.*.get*(..))
</pre></blockquote>
<h4>Calls to non-static methods</h4>
<p> 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,
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
calls(Thread, int getPriority()) // deprecated
</pre></blockquote>
<p> which denotes all calls to nullary int methods named <code>getPriority</code>
when the called object is an instance of the <code>Thread</code> type,
can almost always be rewritten </p>
<blockquote><pre>
call(int Thread.getPriority())
</pre></blockquote>
<p> which denotes all calls to the nullary int <code>Thread.getPriority()</code>
method.
</p>
<p> 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 <code>Thread</code>
when its <code>int getPriority()</code> method is called. If you want
to capture calls to the <code>int Thread.getPriority()</code> method,
regardless of how the called object is statically typed, you shoud use
the different translation: </p>
<blockquote><PRE>
call(int getPriority()) && target(Thread)
</PRE></blockquote>
<p> This will capture all call join points of methods with signature
<code>int Thread.getPriority()</code>. </p>
<p> It will also denote any join points if the Thread type does not
define (possibly abstractly) some <code>int getPriority()</code>
method, though. </p>
<h3><a name="adviceInClasses">Removing advice from Class declarations</a></h3>
<p> 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 </p>
<blockquote><pre>
class C {
static before(): executions(C.new()) { ... } // deprecated
}
</pre></blockquote>
<p> write </p>
<blockquote><pre>
class C {
static aspect ConstructionProtocol {
static before(): executions(C.new()) { ... }
}
}
</pre></blockquote>
<p> 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. </p>
<blockquote><pre>
class C { ... }
aspect ConstructionProtocol {
static before(): execution(C.new()) { ... }
}
</pre></blockquote>
<p> 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. </p>
<!-- ============================== -->
<hr />
<h2><a name="pre07b10">Porting pre-0.7beta10 code</a></h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="#joinPoints">Changing access to thisJoinPoint</a></li>
</ul>
<p>The following changes are only required when porting code written
prior to the 0.7beta10 release of AspectJ.</p>
<h3><a name="joinPoints">Changing access to thisJoinPoint</a></h3>
<p> In AspectJ 0.7beta10, access to the reflective object
<code>thisJoinPoint</code> substantially changed. The two parts of
this change were the elimination of the <code>runNext()</code> static
method, and the use of an interface hierarchy represent the join point
object. </p>
<h4><a name="proceed"><code>thisJoinPoint.runNext()</code> to
<code>proceed()</code></a></h4>
<p> The elimination of the <code>runNext()</code> static method
requires almost no porting work. An automatic replacement of the
string
</p>
<blockquote><code>thisJoinPoint.runNext</code></blockquote>
<p> with the string
</p>
<blockquote><code>proceed</code></blockquote>
<p> will do the job. However, if any around advice used the
identifier "<code>proceed</code>" 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 "<code>this</code>",
depending on whether the field is static or not). </p>
<h4><a name="thisJoinPoint">Using <code>thisJoinPoint</code></a></h4>
<p> While access to reflective information through
<code>thisJoinPoint</code> 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. </p>
<!-- -->
<p> Many existing uses of the fields on join points can be re-written
to use one of:
</p>
<ul>
<li><code>thisJoinPoint.toString()</code></li>
<li><code>thisJoinPoint.toShortString()</code></li>
<li><code>thisJoinPoint.toLongString()</code></li>
<li><code>thisJoinPoint.getSignature().toString()</code></li>
<li><code>thisJoinPoint.getSignature().toShortString()</code></li>
<li><code>thisJoinPoint.getSignature().toLongString()</code></li>
</ul>
<p>For example:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
System.out.println(thisJoinPoint.className + "." +
thisJoinPoint.methodName)
</pre></blockquote>
<p> can be replaced with
</p>
<blockquote><code>System.out.println(thisJoinPoint)</code></blockquote>
<p> or
</p>
<blockquote><code>System.out.println(thisJoinPoint.getSignature().toShortString())</code></blockquote>
<p> with comparable behavior.
</p>
<!-- -->
<p> Accesses to the parameters field of join points should be changed
as follows. A field access like:
</p>
<blockquote><code>thisJoinPoint.parameters</code></blockquote>
<p> must be changed to:
</p>
<ul>
<li><code>thisJoinPoint.getArgs()</code></li>
</ul>
<!-- -->
<p> 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:
</p>
<ul>
<li><code>thisJoinPoint.className</code></li>
<li><code>thisJoinPoint.methodName</code></li>
</ul>
<p> must be changed to:
</p>
<ul>
<li><code>thisJoinPoint.getSignature().getDeclaringType().getName()</code></li>
<li><code>thisJoinPoint.getSignature().getName()</code></li>
</ul>
<!-- -->
<p> 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:
</p>
<ul>
<li><code>thisJoinPoint.parameterNames</code></li>
<li><code>thisJoinPoint.parameterTypes</code></li>
</ul>
<p> must be changed to:
</p>
<ul>
<li><code>((CodeSignature)thisJoinPoint.getSignature()).getParameterNames()</code></li>
<li><code>((CodeSignature)thisJoinPoint.getSignature()).getParameterTypes()</code></li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>
|
