I am implementing a custom rule dll for FXcop. The rule goes as follows : "One should not use static fields inside a multithreaded method without synchronization" . For this i need to get the type of method on which the thread is spawned. i.e. Which method is being passed as a argument to threadstart delegate. Is there any way by which we can acheive the same using FxCopSdk.dll ?
Any help would be Appreciated.
With Regards,
Sriharsha
Related
I am using AspectJ and Load-time weaving to trace methods calls in an arbitrary java program. I can trace all calls using the standard:
call(* *.*(..))
But what I now trying to do is separate out calls to the native java libraries and any application code:
nativeCalls(): !within(MethodTracer) && call(* java..*.*(..));
appCalls(): !within(MethodTracer) && call(* *.*(..)) && !call(* java..*.*(..));
The issue is that the nativeCalls() pointcut is picking out calls to application classes that inherit from native java classes, even though the signatures do not start with java.lang. or java.util, etc.
For example:
If I have a class tetris.GameComponent that inherits from java.awt.Component, my nativeCalls() pointcut will pick out tetris.GameComponent.getBackground() when the method is actually implemented in java.awt.Component.getBackground().
Is there a way to have my nativeCalls() pointcut ignore the calls to inherited methods?
I hope this is clear. I can provide additional info if necessary. Thanks for any help that can be provided.
Actually I have no idea why you want to exclude those inherited method calls from your trace because IMO it is important or at least interesting to know if a method was called on one of your classes, even if that method was defined in a JDK super class.
But anyway, the answer is no, you cannot exclude calls to JDK methods from your nativeCalls() pointcut if those calls are actually made upon target objects typed to one of your application classes. At the time the call is made, AspectJ does not know how the JVM will resolve the polymorphism. There can be several cases:
Call to Foo.aaa(), existing method Foo.aaa() is executed. This is the simple case where a called method actually exists.
Call to Foo.bbb(), inherited method Base.bbb() is executed (polymorphism). This is the case you want to exclude, but you cannot because the fact that a base method is called will only be known when the method is executed. Furthermore, if Base is a JDK class, you cannot even intercept its method executions with AspectJ.
Call to Base.ccc(), non-overridden method Base.ccc() is executed. This can happen if you directly create an instance of Base or also if you assign/cast a Foo instance to a variable typed Base, e.g. Base obj = new Foo(), and call obj.ccc() which has not been overridden by Foo.
Call to Base.ddd(), overridden method Foo.ddd() is executed (polmorphism). This also happens if you assign/cast a Foo instance to a variable typed Base, e.g. Base obj = new Foo(), and call obj.ddd() which has been overridden by Foo.
So much for not being able to easily exclude the polymorphism stuff when calling inherited JDK method.
Now the other way around: You can easily intercept execution() instead of call() upon your application classes and take advantage of the fact that JDK method executions cannot be intercepted anyway: pointcut appMethod() : execution(* *(..));
I've implemented a windows deskband (using the windows SDK sample) and need a way to communicate (one call to start IPC with another application, IPC is already working) with it.
My COM experience is very limited but extrapolating from what I've seen, I think it should be possible to create a new COM interface, implement it in the deskband object (which I have access to via IBandSite), call QueryInterface() for my own interface on it and then use it to call directly into the deskband.
I've tried this but ran into problems very quickly (main reason being: I've no idea what I'm actually doing most of the time ...)
So, my questions are: Is this a viable approach and can someone give me an outline on how to proceed if it is (or point to some resource that could be helpful - short of reading a COM book, which would be my last approach). If it is not, do alternatives come to mind ?
Thank you for your time and best wishes,
Rene.
Here's you path: you add a new interface into .idl file and also if you have a co-class in the .idl file that corresponds to you COM object you list that new interface in the co-class definition. Then you compile the .idl and this gets you a .h file and a .c file with identifiers - the C++ IID and C++ interface definition.
Then you inherit your COM object C++ class from the C++ interface and implement all methods of it. If for whatever reason you can't or don't want to implement a method you have to return E_NOTIMPL from that method implementation.
One very important final thing: you have to change QueryInterface() behavior in you COM object class. If you use ATL you have to add an entry into the COM map. If you don't use ATL change you QueryInterface() - see this question for how to implement QueryInterface() in case of implementing several COM interfaces.
I am using a C++/CLI Wrapper to access a purely C++ library (-> unmanaged) from a C# framework (-> managed). I want to build in a mechanism which enables the C++ library to push information about its status towards the framework. In my understanding this means that I will have to call at least a managed function from unmanaged code at some point. Is this possible and how can I achieve this?
Many thanks for your help!
Best regards,
Jakob
Use a delegate to let unmanaged code call a managed method. Marshal::GetFunctionPointerForDelegate() creates a stub that takes care of the transition, calling an instance method is supported. You can cast the returned pointer to a function pointer usable by the unmanaged code.
You'll find a full code sample in this answer.
I would recommend using a (managed) event for this. You could have your C++ wrapper call a method on your C++/CLI generated class which raises the event.
The event can easily be subscribed to from the C# side, and used like any other C# based event.
For example, i see myself doing things like this latley, when i create an object, if it has a logical path of tasks then
public Class Link
{
public Link(String value)
{
callMethodA(value)
}
public void callMethodA(String data)
{
CallMethodB(doSomethingWithValue)
}
...
...
}
Here you can see, as soon as you instantiate the object, yours tasks get completed automatically.
The other way i can see of doing it is by creating an object, that doesnt link via the constructor, then calling methods individually.
Which was is right and why?
Thanks
Either way we can implement.
Recommended way is to do tasks like initialization stuffs within the constructor and rest of the things can be implemented by way of calling the method with its reference object.
for such scenario one should go for Factory pattern
for example:
Calendar.getInstance();
Constructor should do ALL that requires to make an object complete. That is, if without calling method callMethodA , if the object is incomplete then callMethodA must be called from constructor itself. If the callMethodA is optional API then the user of class Link can call the method when he wants.
I prefer second method. Constructor's job is to initialize the class members. Any modification to change the state of the object needs to be done seperately by member functions.
As long as the objects that are created do not have nothing in common the current way of creating them is fine. Factory Method or Abstract Factory pattern makes sense when there's similarity between created objects. They'll help you isolate the parts that are always the same and moving parts that define differences between objects.
It depends on business logic involved. Both ways are practical. If you want to simply initiate instance specific data, then better to do it in constructor method itself which is more logical and simple. It will save calling other methods explicitly unnecessarily. If instanciating your data is based on certain buisiness condition, then it is good to have main functionality in separate method and then conditionally call it from constructor. This is easy to manage in such scenario.
A constructor is meant to bring the object in the correct initial state. So use it for that purpose. As a general rule of thumb, only use a constructor to set properties. Basic calculations are also ok.
I would not recommend calling very time consuming methods, or methods that are likely to throw exceptions (like calling a webservice or access a file).
When you need to do very special things to bring the object in its initial state, make the constructor private and use a static method to create the object.
How to use System.Dynamic.DynamicObject in VB.NET 10.0 ?
I can create class that inherits from DynamicObject, but cannot actually use it.
With VB, you have to turn Option Strict OFF on the class file that you want to consume the DynamicObject implementation. Doing this does mean that you lose the type safety that comes with Option Strict On. In addition, Dynamic opens you up to no longer relying on the compiler to check your method names for you.
I'm writing a series on creating a Dynamic CSV Enumerable type in VB at http://www.thinqlinq.com/Post.aspx/Title/LINQ-to-CSV-using-DynamicObject and can assure you that it does work in VB.
Jim Wooley
See this page
Subclasses can override the various
binder methods (GetMember, SetMember,
Call, etc.) to provide custom behavior
that will be invoked at runtime.
If a method is not overridden then the DynamicObject does not
directly support that behavior and the
call site will determine how the
binding should be performed.