I'm possibly going to review our approach to intertype declaration naming. The names are currently mangled deliberately to preserve some of the 'rules' that AspectJ defines. For example, private field itds have mangled names because the field is private to the aspect and shouldn't be visible as a 'regular' private field in the target. This also enables two aspects to ITD the same private field and there is no clash in the target type.
However, since those rules were defined a long time ago, things have changed and various frameworks are looking at members via reflection, for purposes of invocation or automatic persistence. The mangling is unhelpful here. I *thinking* about allowing non-mangled names, possibly with a directive annotation in the aspect that says "do not mangle these, I know what I'm doing and there won't be a problem". Basically I wanted to collect any thoughts from you guys? I suspect that the some of the scenarios AspectJ worries about rarely happen in practice - have you ever ITD'd the same named private field from two aspects onto the same type? (AspectJ can continue to warn/error when it sees this about to happen of course) cheers, Andy _______________________________________________ aspectj-users mailing list aspectj-users@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users