Re: [abc] RE: [abc-dev] Valid combinations of primitive pointcuts

I would suggest pointing him at
http://abc.comlab.ox.ac.uk/documents/adviceweaver.pdf
for details on the mapping. Your draft response looks fine to me.

Cheers,

Ganesh

On Sat, 9 Apr 2005, Sascha Kuzins wrote:

>
> Here is a draft response to Eric's mail. Please comment/modify/add to
> it. It does not address the second question.
> Cheers,
> Sascha
>
> ******************
>
> Dear Eric,
>
> It is not entirely clear what you mean by "invalid". The example
> pointcut you present never matches, but that should be no reason to
> consider it invalid (what about the pointcut "if(false)", for example?).
> One could come up with some clearly defined validity conditions. An
> example would be to not allow multiple kinded non-negated pointcut
> primitives of different kinds in the same disjunct of the pointcut
> expression (given the expression is in DNF), because this disjunct would
> never match.
> In your example, however, one would have to do a non-trivial analysis to
> determine if the method patterns are really disjunct (which is easy in
> this case, but not generally).
> Even if we had such an analysis, there are still problems with labeling
> such cases "invalid". For example, a code generator that generates
> pointcut expressions would now have to perform the same analyses to make
> sure that the generated programs are not invalid.
>
> One analogy one could think of here is that Java does not disallow
> constructs such as "if(0!=0).." or "if(false).." either, even though one
> could argue they are invalid because the conditions are never fulfilled.
>
> It would, however, be useful to issue warnings for pointcuts that are
> likely to be a mistake (like the one from your example). We discussed
> this issue a while ago, but this functionality is not implemented at the
> moment.
>
> Regards,
>
> ...
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Majordomo list server
> > [mailto:majordomo@comlab.ox.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Eric Bodden
> > Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 11:56 AM
> > To: abc-dev@comlab.ox.ac.uk
> > Subject: [abc-dev] Valid combinations of primitive pointcuts
> > Sensitivity: Private
> >
> >
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Hi, abc team.
> >
> > In my tool I am generating pointcuts, well actually boolean
> > combinations of those. One task I have to do is not to filter
> > out invalid combinations of primitive pointcuts, such as e.g. call(*
> > A.foo()) && call(* A.bar()), which is obviously not valid,
> > since no calls to different methods can occur at the same joinpoint.
> >
> > So my question would be: Has your team by chance already
> > compiled such a list and if so, could I get a copy of or link
> > to it? If not, would you be interested in such a document? It
> > might help to improve AspectJ's semantic analysis, which IMO
> > should not allow such pointcuts either.
> >
> > Also I remember that there was a mapping going on from actual
> > AspectJ pointcuts to abc's internal representation. Where can
> > I find this again?
> >
> > Thank you a lot,
> > Eric
> >
> > - --
> > Eric Bodden
> > Chair I2 for Programming Languages and Program Analysis
> > RWTH Aachen University
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: PGP 8.0.3
> >
> > iQA/AwUBQlemm8wiFCm7RlWCEQI+CgCfdmjddU0pq1R4DiCaXATA0yqZJz0An1cS
> > +ZcVIrqWcqZQxdxuewfeA3pM
> > =Dxfj
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Received on Sun Apr 10 21:38:28 2005