Hi,
Ths issues was resolved in the bugzilla. I asked about that because
I needed this code. This is working now.
public interface StateTransition {
StateTransition activate();
StateTransition deActivate();
}
public enum AStateTransition implements StateTransition{
ACTIVATE(new Activation()),
DEACTIVATE(new DeActivation());
private final StateTransition stateTransition;
private AStateTransition(StateTransition stateTransition) {
this.stateTransition = stateTransition;
}
@Overridepublic StateTransition activate() {
return stateTransition.activate();
}
@Overridepublic StateTransition deActivate() {
return stateTransition.deActivate();
}
}
public class Activation implements StateTransition {
public StateTransition activate() {
return AStateTransition.ACTIVATE;
}
@Overridepublic StateTransition deActivate() {
return AStateTransition.DEACTIVATE;
}
}
public class DeActivation implements StateTransition {
public StateTransition deActivate() {
return AStateTransition.DEACTIVATE;
}
@Overridepublic StateTransition activate() {
return AStateTransition.ACTIVATE;
}
}
@Aspect()
public class StateChangeAspect {
//Could be more generic so that all implemented methods
//are covered
@Pointcut("execution(* AStateTransition.activate()) &&
target(stateTransition) && if()")
public static boolean stateChangePointcut( AStateTransition
stateTransition ){
return AStateTransition.ACTIVATE == stateTransition;
}
@Before("stateChangePointcut(stateTransition)")
public void test1( AStateTransition stateTransition ) {
System.out.println( " aspect " );
}
@Before("stateChangePointcut(stateTransition)")
public void test1(JoinPoint joinPoint, AStateTransition stateTransition) {
System.out.println(joinPoint + " -> " + stateTransition);
}
}
Thanks,
Mohan
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 9:10 PM Andy Clement <andrew.clem...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hey,
>
> It is quite an old issue. I thought I'd done something around enum
> matching but I can't find it - I think maybe it was just in the context of
> enums used in annotation values. Re-reading the issue now I don't see
> exactly what it is asking for "Enum code requires Enum value JoinPoints."
> - if it is enum specific joinpoints, I am super nervous about adding new
> joinpoints because suddenly they will start affecting all existing code
> that was using wildcards. If you just want to guard on joinpoints related
> to enum related operations there are type category patterns in
> https://www.eclipse.org/aspectj/doc/released/README-169.html
>
> Is it asking for static matching (vs runtime/dynamic matching) in join
> points related to enums, that feels like it could be done without new join
> points, just needs some improvements in the matching algorithm to recognize
> enums in use.
>
> cheers,
> Andy
>
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 07:12, Mohan Radhakrishnan <
> radhakrishnan.mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=248681#c2
>>
>> This was a very old request I raised. I think the comment there means
>> this is already implemented.
>>
>> But AJDT doesn't apply the pointcut. Was this implemented ?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mohan
>> _______________________________________________
>> aspectj-users mailing list
>> aspectj-users@eclipse.org
>> To unsubscribe from this list, visit
>> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>>
> _______________________________________________
> aspectj-users mailing list
> aspectj-users@eclipse.org
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>
_______________________________________________
aspectj-users mailing list
aspectj-users@eclipse.org
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
