Hi Andy. Do you think there is a chance to implement a feature request about enabling ITD for groups of classes instead of having to know exact class names beforehand? A typical example is that people on StackOverflow often ask about declaring static loggers via ITD. If this could be done in a more generic way by utilising type name patterns instead of fixed type names, I think it would be a huge and useful improvement. The only workaround thus far is to use annotation processing, but then you also need to know beforehand which classes to target because you need to annotate them. I personally try to avoid marker annotations because I usually want to keep my core code as clean as possible from AOP-related stuff, keeping the aspects really separate as cross-cutting concerns.
I would be interested in your feedback before I just create a Bugzilla ticket out of the blue, maybe without any chance for it to ever get implemented because it would be too much effort to implement it in the first place. I am aware of the fact the the AspectT syntax would need to be somewhat expanded for this. But at least the type pattern syntax per se and the corresponding matching rules already exist for normal (non-ITD) pointcuts, so maybe just the parser needs to be extended and of course ITD generation itself (the process of actually adding the same members, methods or constructors to a set of target classes instead of a to single one) as well. Kind regards -- Alexander Kriegisch https://scrum-master.de _______________________________________________ aspectj-users mailing list [email protected] To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
