blob: daf08f8014ec6f8181ea9ad16f5d860fa5671247 (
plain)
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
|
<chapter id="pitfalls" xreflabel="Pitfalls">
<title>Pitfalls</title>
<sect1 id="pitfalls-intro">
<title>Introduction</title>
<para>
This chapter consists of a few AspectJ programs that may lead to
surprising behavior and how to understand them.
</para>
</sect1>
<sect1 id="pitfalls-infiniteLoops">
<title>Infinite loops</title>
<para>
Here is a Java program with peculiar behavior
</para>
<programlisting><![CDATA[
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
foo();
System.out.println("done with call to foo");
}
static void foo() {
try {
foo();
} finally {
foo();
}
}
}
]]></programlisting>
<para>
This program will never reach the println call, but when it aborts
may have no stack trace.
</para>
<para>
This silence is caused by multiple StackOverflowExceptions. First
the infinite loop in the body of the method generates one, which the
finally clause tries to handle. But this finally clause also
generates an infinite loop which the current JVMs can't handle
gracefully leading to the completely silent abort.
</para>
<para>
The following short aspect will also generate this behavior:
</para>
<programlisting><![CDATA[
aspect A {
before(): call(* *(..)) { System.out.println("before"); }
after(): call(* *(..)) { System.out.println("after"); }
}
]]></programlisting>
<para>
Why? Because the call to println is also a call matched by the
pointcut <literal>call (* *(..))</literal>. We get no output because
we used simple after() advice. If the aspect were changed to
</para>
<programlisting><![CDATA[
aspect A {
before(): call(* *(..)) { System.out.println("before"); }
after() returning: call(* *(..)) { System.out.println("after"); }
}
]]></programlisting>
<para>
Then at least a StackOverflowException with a stack trace would be
seen. In both cases, though, the overall problem is advice applying
within its own body.
</para>
<para>
There's a simple idiom to use if you ever have a worry that your
advice might apply in this way. Just restrict the advice from occurring in
join points caused within the aspect. So:
</para>
<programlisting><![CDATA[
aspect A {
before(): call(* *(..)) && !within(A) { System.out.println("before"); }
after() returning: call(* *(..)) && !within(A) { System.out.println("after"); }
}
]]></programlisting>
<para>
Other solutions might be to more closely restrict the pointcut in
other ways, for example:
</para>
<programlisting><![CDATA[
aspect A {
before(): call(* MyObject.*(..)) { System.out.println("before"); }
after() returning: call(* MyObject.*(..)) { System.out.println("after"); }
}
]]></programlisting>
<para>
The moral of the story is that unrestricted generic pointcuts can
pick out more join points than intended.
</para>
</sect1>
</chapter>
|
