Thanks for the feedback Ramnivas. ;-)
Rather than try to do a threadlocal, I tried to use an inter-type and add an
attribute to all classes the implment HttpSession. However, I'm having a
bit of trouble with it. I don't know if my problem is a result of trying to
use an interface in the javax.* package [1] or if it's because I'm trying to
declare parents for an interface.
Below is my aspect.
@Aspect
public class SessionIndicator {
public interface ClusterableHttpSession {
Map<String, Integer> getAttributesHash();
};
public static class ClusterableHttpSessionImpl implements
ClusterableHttpSession {
private HashMap<String, Integer> attributesHash = new
HashMap<String, Integer>();
public Map<String, Integer> getAttributesHash() {
return attributesHash;
}
}
@DeclareParents(value = "javax.servlet.http.HttpSession", defaultImpl =
ClusterableHttpSessionImpl.class)
private ClusterableHttpSession implementedInterface;
@Before("call(void javax.servlet.http.HttpSession.setAttribute(..)) &&
this(m) ")
public void trackSessionAttributeHash(ClusterableHttpSession m) {
System.out.println("This is where we're going to look at the session
attribute" + m.getAttributesHash());
}
}
Am I trying to do something that's not supported? Or am I missing
something?
Thanks for your time!
Jim
[1] http://www.eclipse.org/aspectj/doc/next/devguide/ltw-specialcases.html
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Ramnivas Laddad
<[email protected]>wrote:
> Inline...
>
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Jim Sellers<[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > Hello all.
> >
> > I'm new to writing AOP code and have only used it for common uses like
> > transactions (in spring). Please forgive me if I mess up the AOP terms,
> but
> > feel free to correct me. ;-)
> >
> > Now I'm trying to solve an issues and I wanted to see if you guys have
> any
> > advice about if I'm on the right track, "this is already done with lib
> X",
> > ... (aside: I use maven / eclipse for the projects)
> >
> > Background for the problem I'm trying to solve:
> > I am trying to put in some AOP code that will intercept calls to
> > HTTPSession.setAttribute(...). Using this we will be able to verify that
> > any code being put into session is serializable. Also, for any object
> that
> > implments HTTPSession, we'll trap the state of the object being set
> (using
> > HashcodeBuilder to generate a hash), and then at the end of the test
> verify
> > the the object in our mock session has not changed (has the same
> hashcode).
> > In this way we are hoping to be able to verify if an application is
> > clusterable without a tedious class by class inspection.
> >
> > Here are the issues that I currently have:
> > 1) I'm a little confused on what code should be "woven" - the creating of
> a
> > mock HTTPSession will only happen in testing code (src/test/java) while
> the
> > *calls* to setAttribute(..) that I care about will only happen in prod
> code
> > (src/main/java)
>
> Which code is calling HttpSession.setAttribute()? If you control that
> code (in production; in tests, you clearly control the calls).
> Assuming that you control calls in production code as well, call seems
> to be the correct join point in either case.
>
> >
> > 2) I only want to add this weaving for the tests, I don't want these
> checks
> > making it into code running in production or for the project to have a
> > non-test dependency on this code
>
> You can have two build targets--one that includes aspects and other
> that doesn't.
>
> >
> > 3) I think that I need to add a joinpoint (pointcut ?) to an "after
> return"
> > on my @Test methods in order to check the state of the session. Most of
> the
> > examples are done using method name matching. Can I mix a pattern match
> > (public void test*) and an annotation, or is that 2 seperate join points?
> >
> http://www.eclipse.org/aspectj/doc/released/adk15notebook/annotations-pointcuts-and-advice.html
>
> You can write a pointcut that can mix name patterns with annotations.
>
> >
> > 4) in order to check the state of the mock session at the end of the
> test,
> > I think that I will need to keep a reference to them in the advice. Is
> this
> > normally done or is there something wrong with this approach? Would it
> need
> > to be a static member variable of the advice (I'm not clear of the
> lifecycle
> > / state of the advice yet)
>
> You could advise mock creation to keep references to those in a
> ThreadLocal member of the aspect. You can also use the percflow()
> association for the aspect (but, since you are just starting with
> AspectJ, you may not want to venture into that area just yet). Then
> you may advise the completion of test methods (an after returning
> advice) to verify all mocks for which the aspect has a reference
> (added by the earlier mentioned advice). It should also clear the
> references as it checks.
>
> >
> > Thanks for your time in even reading this far. ;-) Any help would be
> > wonderful.
> >
> > Thanks for your time,
> > Jim
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > aspectj-users mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> aspectj-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>
_______________________________________________
aspectj-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
