anonymous wrote : | - how fine grained we should classify the pointcuts? | I think if we are going to do this, we should be able to classify the pointcuts fully. The expression tree from javacc when we parse a Pointcut from the string representation already contains the full structure, so I guess it is just a case of creating another visitor to classify the pointcut when we add the pointcut to the AM. We should split the "execution" classification into whether a method or constructor is called as well. anonymous wrote : | - should we create a special pointcutcollection class (as flavia suggested) that contain the pointcuts and with utilities to fetch them as needed? (basically we should avoid to clutter up AM anymore than it already is) | Sounds like a good idea, although we need to keep the existing API since we have gone CR. The old methods could just wrap the new structures. If we add a new binding containing an execution pointcut for methods, then as a result of that the affected advisors should only rebuild their method chains, no point in rebuilding constructors, fields etc. On that note, if adding a field read/write pointcut, we should ignore all Advisors that cannot have advised fields, such as the ClassContainer and ClassProxyContainer. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4150315#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...