Nope I have no testcase, I couldn’t recreate it in a simple scenario after trying for a little while so had to work on it in Romains complete app. Sometimes I don’t have the cycles to get a lovely regression test in place :(
cheers, Andy > On Apr 12, 2015, at 8:02 AM, Alexander Kriegisch <alexan...@kriegisch.name> > wrote: > > Hi Andy. > >> Possibly it is the use of declare parents extends (with generics), >> that is just not as common as declare parents implements. > > Actually, no. That was the first thing I tried, namely getting rid of the > interface implementation 'DefaultIdentifiable' and replacing it like this: > > > package fr.inria.zvtm.cluster; > > import fr.inria.zvtm.engine.Camera; > import fr.inria.zvtm.engine.VirtualSpace; > import fr.inria.zvtm.glyphs.Glyph; > import fr.inria.zvtm.engine.portals.Portal; > > aspect ObjIdIntroduction { > declare parents: VirtualSpace implements Identifiable; > declare parents: Glyph implements Identifiable; > declare parents: Camera implements Identifiable; > declare parents: Portal implements Identifiable; > > private final ObjId Identifiable.objId = ObjIdFactory.next(); > private boolean Identifiable.replicated = false; > > public ObjId Identifiable.getObjId(){ return objId; } > public boolean Identifiable.isReplicated() { return replicated; } > public void Identifiable.setReplicated(boolean val) { this.replicated = > val; } > } > > The resulting compilation errors were the same as before. I actually tried to > replicate the generics situation in a simple project, but have failed to do > so. Do you have a test case for it? Well, probably I should just look at your > Git repo and check the latest commits (if you have pushed them already). > > Regards > -- > Alexander Kriegisch > > Schillerplatz 6, 91315 Höchstadt, Germany > Tel +49 (9193) 52 76, Mob +49 (176) 20 53 07 02 > > > Andy Clement schrieb am 11.04.2015 18:56: > >> Hey, >> >> Yes, Romain sent me some repo references off list so the discussion ended up >> continuing there. I was planning to post back here when we got to a >> conclusion >> (which we just did last night when Romain tested a 1.8.6 snapshot I created >> with a potential fix). >> >> The new method will make it into the class file proceedOnError, but of course >> that isn’t where the compiler is looking. The compiler is looking at the raw >> type binding for Glyph, and that has a super type of Object. Sometime after >> that raw type representation is built we apply the declare parents and it >> changes the super type of the generic type of Glyph to the new type that >> contains the missing methods. When the classfiles are written out, they’ll >> be based on the generic type so the correct declare parented super type will >> be >> there but for all the non generic references made in the program, they will >> being resolved against the raw type which does not have these methods in its >> hierarchy. >> >> I don’t quite understand why this is only coming up now, looks to have been >> missing for a long time. Possibly it is the use of declare parents extends >> (with generics), that is just not as common as declare parents implements. >> >> The fix is simply to have a look for a raw type when patching up the generic >> type and fix that up too, possibly there is an issue with parameterized types >> too but I have no test program that shows me there is an issue (yet). >> >> A proceed on error without the fix would probably leave the code with eclipse >> exception throwing code generated at the bad method call sites that would >> fail >> at runtime when exercised. I never recommend proceedOnError. >> >> cheers, >> Andy >> >>> On Apr 11, 2015, at 5:47 AM, Alexander Kriegisch <alexan...@kriegisch.name> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Sounds good, Romain, I had no idea Andy was in touch with you. >>> >>> BTW, I noticed that if you add >>> <proceedOnError>true</proceedOnError> >>> to the POM of zvtm-cluster, the build continues and the necessary methods >>> seem >>> to be there in the resulting class files. Can you please test that with the >>> official v1.8.5 (not the fixed preview) and tell me if the software actually >>> does what it is supposed to? I have no idea how to test that because I do >>> not >>> know ZVTM. I am just curious if this workaround to keep the build going >>> actually works or leaves behind inconsistently woven class files. >>> >>> Thanks in advance >>> -- >>> Alexander Kriegisch >>> http://scrum-master.de >>> >>> >>> Romain Primet schrieb am 11.04.2015 14:35: >>> >>>> Hi Alexander, >>>> >>>> I got a reply from Andy off-list; looks like an issue with ITD and >>>> generic types (ITD not being done on raw type). I'm sure Andy will be >>>> more precise; also, he has provided me with a snapshot build of aspectj >>>> that builds zvtm-cluster just fine. >>>> >>>> Thanks a lot to you both for the debugging and help! >>>> >>>> Romain >>>> >>>> Le 11/04/2015 14:31, Alexander Kriegisch a écrit : >>>>> Hi Andy. >>>>> >>>>> I have looked into this a little more and noticed that the build within >>>>> Eclipse Luna with AJDT works nicely, but fails with AspectJ Maven Plugin >>>>> and >>>>> on the command line via ajc.bat. So this might be a clue what it going >>>>> wrong >>>>> if you can answer one question: What does ADJT differently in comparison >>>>> to >>>>> Ajc with regards to build order or other relevant factors? >>>>> >>>>> I have also noticed that if I remove the three Aspect files >>>>> - GlyphCreation.aj >>>>> - GlyphReplication.aj >>>>> - VirtualSpaceReplication.aj >>>>> from zvtm-cluster, the module compiles fine. This is because these aspects >>>>> rely on ObjIdIntroduction.aj being woven first as they expect the >>>>> introduced >>>>> methods to be present in the target classes from module zvtm-core. >>>>> >>>>> I also tried to replicate a minimal sample with a Java project and an >>>>> AspectJ >>>>> project having the Java project on its inpath. The AspectJ project has >>>>> three >>>>> aspects which rely on each other's methods being present. It does not show >>>>> any >>>>> errors during compilation from either Eclipse or command line though. So >>>>> probably you need to analyse the real project. To me it definitely looks >>>>> like >>>>> a bug. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> aspectj-users mailing list >>>> aspectj-users@eclipse.org >>>> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe >>>> from >>>> this list, visit >>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> aspectj-users mailing list >>> aspectj-users@eclipse.org >>> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from >>> this list, visit >>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users >> >> _______________________________________________ >> aspectj-users mailing list >> aspectj-users@eclipse.org >> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from >> this list, visit >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users >> > > _______________________________________________ > aspectj-users mailing list > aspectj-users@eclipse.org > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from > this list, visit > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users _______________________________________________ aspectj-users mailing list aspectj-users@eclipse.org To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users