BTW - were the annotation classes with the <clinit> errors marked with a RUNTIME @Retention? I'm guessing maybe the non-runtime annotations probably don't get a clinit...
_________________________ Sent over RFC-1149 compliant transport - please excuse occasionnal packet loss Le 26 oct. 2012 à 22:31, Andy Clement <[email protected]> a écrit : > Bizarre that you get the missing clinit message when AspectJ is the > only reason one got inserted... I wonder if there is something wrong > (maybe flags or something) about the clinit that it inserts in this > case. Could be worth raising an issue about: > https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/enter_bug.cgi?product=AspectJ > > I guess if it isn't triggering when you expect you are probably just > going to avoid weaving annotations? (which also gets around this > problem) > > cheers, > Andy > > On 26 October 2012 06:49, Timothy Armstrong <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I think you're probably right about the annotations. In the tests, I'm just >> mentioning them by name with their .class object, such as >> "myAnnotation.class". It's unfortunate the aspect doesn't trigger then, but >> I can work around it. There are hits on Google for 'is missing <clinit>', >> but only one for 'AspectJ "is missing <clinit>"'. I couldn't figure it out >> based on the hits. Yes, when I remove the staticinitialization aspect, it >> compiles. I'm compiling all the annotations from source, if that's what you >> mean. >> >> Thanks, >> Tim >> >> >> >> On 10/25/2012 08:21 PM, Andy Clement wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> You will only see your message when the static initializer runs. The >>> class may get loaded and used (to some degree) without that happening. >>> For example, here are some simple types: >>> >>> @Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME) >>> @interface Foo { >>> } >>> >>> public class Code { >>> @Foo >>> public static void main(String []argv) throws Exception { >>> } >>> } >>> >>> I can compile that and run 'Code' without the Foo static initializer >>> running. >>> >>> But if I change Code to do something with it, then we will see the >>> initializer running: >>> >>> public class Code { >>> @Foo >>> public static void main(String []argv) throws Exception { >>> Foo f = >>> Code.class.getDeclaredMethod("main",String[].class).getAnnotation(Foo.class); >>> } >>> } >>> >>> Can it be that some of your code just isn't exercising the annotations >>> enough to see their static initializers run? >>> >>> I've never seen the "is missing <clinit>" message before, but I see it >>> is classified as a bit odd: >>> https://forums.oracle.com/forums/thread.jspa?messageID=4824974 >>> >>> I don't speak Maven very well - is AspectJ being used to build those >>> annotation types? (I'm not sure if you are building everything from >>> source or just weaving via a post compile step). >>> >>> If you remove your aspect the "is missing" messages all disappear? >>> >>> cheers, >>> Andy >>> >>> On 25 October 2012 08:24, Timothy Armstrong <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> Thanks for your replies. Yes, I get the same behavior when I put version >>>> 1.6.11 in the POM, just without the "bad version number" warning. I >>>> should >>>> have posted that version. I always get the "advice defined in ... has not >>>> been applied" warnings for the other aspects, but they still work. It >>>> does >>>> compile when I specify an annotation, such as >>>> "staticinitialization(@OWLClass *)". I posted the only lines in the POM >>>> having to do with AspectJ, so I don't know where else filters would be >>>> that >>>> ignore the test tree. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/25/2012 09:19 AM, Krzysztof Dębski wrote: >>>>> >>>>> aspectj-maven-plugin doesn't support aspectj 1.7 >>>>> >>>>> see: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MASPECTJ-108 >>>>> >>>>> Krzysztof Debski >>>>> >>>>> 2012/10/24 Romain MULLER <[email protected]>: >>>>>> >>>>>> I surely am no maven guru and I won't risk myself in trying to comment >>>>>> your POM. That said, on the Maven error, I think the following line >>>>>> could be of some relevance: >>>>>> >>>>>> [WARNING] bad version number found in >>>>>> >>>>>> /home/tim/.m2/repository/org/aspectj/aspectjrt/1.7.0/aspectjrt-1.7.0.jar >>>>>> expected 1.6.11 found 1.7.0 >>>>>> >>>>>> This looks dodgy, I would try to arrange things so that this warning >>>>>> isn't produced anymore before digging any further on the maven errors. >>>>>> >>>>>> On the eclipse side, I'd recommend checking that your AspectJ compiler >>>>>> options don't have filters that get your test tree ignored by the >>>>>> compile-time weaver. I know it's kind of an "are you sure your >>>>>> computer is plugged to a power socket" check, but they very often give >>>>>> good results ;) >>>>>> >>>>>> _________________________ >>>>>> Sent over RFC-1149 compliant transport - please excuse occasionnal >>>>>> packet >>>>>> loss >>>>>> >>>>>> Le 24 oct. 2012 à 22:08, Timothy Armstrong <[email protected]> a >>>>>> écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> [WARNING] bad version number found in >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /home/tim/.m2/repository/org/aspectj/aspectjrt/1.7.0/aspectjrt-1.7.0.jar >>>>>>> expected 1.6.11 found 1.7.0 >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ aspectj-users mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
