I like this proposal.
Here is an alternative syntax suggestion that
- addresses Dave's use case
- addresses a use case that is easy to implement in @AspectJ but not
in code style
- avoids new keywords
public aspect ITDAspect{
/* don't have define the class here, don't need to make it private;
but defining it that way matches Dave's example
*/
private static class ITDDefaultImpl {
private String string;
public String getString(){
return string;
}
public void setString(String string){
this.string = string;
}
}
/* declare that ITDInterface should be introduced with
all fields and methods in ITDDefaultImpl
Not sure about the choice of using "extends"
(trying to avoid new keyword)
Alternatives: declare implements? declare default?
*/
declare extends: ITDInterface, ITDDefaultImpl;
}
This makes a common use case implemented by the following @AspectJ
snippet available in the code style syntax. Essentially, I get to
reuse the implementation available from an existing class.
@DeclareParents(value="com.myco.domain.*",
defaultImpl= ITDDefaultImpl.class)
ITDInterface something;
How does this sound?
-Ramnivas
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Andy Clement <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I could be wrong but I think I recall someone talking about something
> like this a while ago - possibly Ramnivas. Although having just
> trawled through our enhancement requests, I only found this:
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=240011 which is about
> saving typing but isn't quite the same thing. What you propose is
> interesting, what do others think?
>
> cheers,
> Andy.
>
> 2008/12/3 Dave Whittaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> I've been wondering recently.... is there a reason that ITDs are defined the
>> way they are? I don't know how others tend to use them, but for me I'm
>> pretty likely to have an aspect that contains ITD fields and methods that
>> apply to a single interface within a given aspect. This makes me wonder why
>> we have a syntax like:
>>
>> public aspect ITDAspect{
>>
>> private String ITDInterface.string;
>>
>> public String ITDInterface.getString(){
>> return string;
>> }
>>
>> public void ITDInterface.setString(String string){
>> this.string = string;
>> }
>>
>> }
>>
>> Instead of:
>>
>> public aspect ITDAspect{
>>
>> intertype(ITDInterface){
>>
>>
>> private String string;
>>
>> public String getString(){
>> return string;
>> }
>>
>> public void setString(String string){
>> this.string = string;
>> }
>>
>> }
>> }
>>
>> Or something similar. Something that involved less typing, consolidated
>> code that is defined for another type and looked more like plain java code
>> (not to mention more like other AJ definitions in this case....). At the
>> very least it would allow for something that I've wanted many times: cut and
>> paste between classes and ITDs without having to post process with some sort
>> of wacky regex. Am I missing a reason why it's desirable or even necessary
>> to type out the full interface name on each line?
>> _______________________________________________
>> aspectj-users mailing list
>> aspectj-users@eclipse.org
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
> _______________________________________________
> aspectj-users mailing list
> aspectj-users@eclipse.org
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>
_______________________________________________
aspectj-users mailing list
aspectj-users@eclipse.org
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
