DOCSLIB.ORG

Workshop on Aspects and Dimensions of Concern: Requirements On, and Challenge Problems For, Advanced Separation of Concerns∗

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Workshop on Aspects and Dimensions of Concern: Requirements On, and Challenge Problems For, Advanced Separation of Concerns∗ Workshop on Aspects and Dimensions of Concern: Requirements on, and Challenge Problems For, Advanced Separation Of Concerns∗ Peri Tarr1, Maja D’Hondt2, Lodewijk Bergmans3, and Cristina Videira Lopes4 (editors) 1IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown, NY 10598 USA [email protected] 2Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium [email protected] 3University of Twente, Dept. of Computer Science, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands [email protected] 4Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, 3333 Coyote Hill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA [email protected] Workshop web site: http://trese.cs.utwente.nl/Workshops/adc2000 Abstract. This document describes the results of the two-day Workshop on Aspects and Dimensions of Concern at ECOOP 2000. The workshop produced the beginnings of a set of goals, requirements, and issues to be addressed by approaches to advanced separation of concerns. These goals and issues are encapsulated, in part, in a set of challenge problems that are intended to be solved by providers of advanced separation of concerns technologies. The challenge problems and requirements begin to define the boundaries of this problem domain and solution space, and they will help provide a basis for evaluating and comparing different solutions and solution approaches. 1 Introduction The First Workshop on Aspects and Dimensions of Concern was held at ECOOP 2000, following several previous workshops on Aspect-Oriented Programming, Subject-Oriented Programming, and Multi-Dimensional Separation of Concerns. Whereas the goals of previous workshops had been to introduce and begin to explore the new subdomain of advanced separation of concerns, this workshop’s purpose was instead to begin to define a set of concrete goals for, requirements on, and issues to be addressed by, approaches to advanced separation of concerns. The explicit representation of these goals, requirements, and issues represents the start of the transition of advanced separation of concerns from an infant subdiscipline to a coherent, mature research area. When completed, they will help to define the ∗ This workshop was funded in part by Xerox PARC and IBM Research. boundaries of the problem domain and solution space, and they will provide a basis for evaluation of, and comparison among, different solutions and solution approaches. To accomplish the workshop goals, we brought together both practitioners and researchers who have experienced problems related to inadequate separation of concerns, and practitioners and researchers who have provided solution technologies or approaches that address these problems. It was our intention to establish a dialogue between these two groups, to reveal the needs of the former group and the capabilities of the latter, thus facilitating the identification of goals, requirements and issues for advanced separation of concerns. To achieve this, prospective participants were required to submit position papers describing either some problems they had encountered, or solutions they had developed, in the field of advanced separation of concerns. This resulted in more than 40 experienced researchers and developers participating in the workshop, and their position papers can be found on the workshop web site, http://trese.cs.utwente.nl/Workshops/adc2000. As a highly interactive setting seemed most suitable, we allocated the larger amount of the two-day workshop to group work, only occasionally alternating it with invited talks from some of the experts in the field and authors who provided highly incisive, challenging problems. Seven heterogeneous groups were formed, joining problem providers with solution providers, and distributing co-authors or colleagues over as many groups as possible. This policy ensured that as wide a variety of submitted problems and solutions as possible were discussed in each group. Over the two days, the groups analyzed selected problems and evaluated some solutions by applying them to the problems. Each group presented both an interim report and their final results. The workshop concluded with a panel consisting of one representative per group, which proved to be a valuable source of general insights to the community. The rest of this document describes some of the results of this two-day workshop. Depending on the viewpoint adopted by a group—either the problem perspective or the solution perspective—the group work resulted in the following kinds of results: − Challenge problems: Challenge problems are software engineering scenarios that highlight one or more key problems and issues in advanced separation of concerns. The problem statement also describes any necessary requirements or constraints on solutions. Challenge problems, as their name suggests, are intended to serve as challenges to those researchers and developers in this subdomain who have produced, or who will produce, models of, or tools to support, software engineering using advanced separation of concerns. It is our hope that the producers of such models and technologies will propose solutions to the challenge problems using their models and technologies. As a result, we expect that some limitations or interesting features of existing models and technologies will be uncovered, prompting new research, and that the various solutions will be used as a basis for comparing and contrasting the relative strengths and weaknesses of different approaches. – Generalization of challenge problems: Particular subsets of challenge problems suggest larger, abstract classes of problems. Such generalizations are particularly critical, as they help to identify and categorize key parts of the problem domain. − Requirements statements: Some of the requirements on advanced separation of concerns approaches are already well defined; for example, an advanced separation of concerns approach must facilitate the encapsulation of multiple kinds of concerns, including those that cross-cut objects. Many requirements, however, are not well defined or widely accepted. Requirements statements highlight requirements on approaches to advanced separation of concerns, and they are generally illustrated with examples. It is our intent that the producers of advanced separation of concerns models and technologies will indicate how their models and technologies address these requirements; if they do not, we hope that they will use the requirements to help them identify new areas for subsequent research. Each result is classified accordingly. The remainder of this document is organized as follows. Sections 2-8 describe, respectively, the results produced by a particular workshop subgroup. Finally, Section 9 presents some conclusions and future work. Clearly, a single, two-day workshop is not sufficient time to produce a complete set of requirements, issues, or challenge problems, or even to produce a representative set. The results reported in this document are preliminary. Subsequent efforts may determine that some of the results are incomplete, inadequate, mutually inconsistent, or erroneous. It is our intention for these results to be discussed, revised and expanded by the advanced separation of concerns community. Beyond all else, this document is intended to provide food for thought. 1.1 Contributors The results described in this paper are due to—and in many cases, adapted from reports written by—the workshop participants and organizers: Mehmet Aksit, Jean Paul Arcangeli, Federico Bergenti, Lodewijk Bergmans, Andrew Black, Johan Brichau, Isabel Brito, Laurent Bussard, Lee Carver, Constantinos Constantinides, Pascal Costanza, Krzysztof Czarnecki, Lutz Dominick, Maja D’Hondt, Wolfgang De Meuter, Kris de Volder, Erik Ernst, Robert Filman, Eric Hilsdale, Mathias Jung, Pertti Kellomäki, Mik Kersten, Gregor Kiczales, Thomas Kühne, Donal Lafferty, Cristina Videira Lopes, Mira Menzini, Tommi Mikkonen, Blay Mireille, Oscar Nierstrasz, Klaus Ostermann, J. Andrés Díaz Pace, Renaud Pawlak, Elke Pulvermüller, Bert Robben, Martin Robillard, Andreas Speck, Erlend Stav, Patrick Steyaert, Peri Tarr, Tom Tourwé, Eddy Truyen, Bart Vanhaute, John Zinky. 2 Safe Composition Group members: Laurent Bussard, Lee Carver, Erik Ernst, Mathias Jung, Martin Robillard, and Andreas Speck Issues: Semantically correct composition of aspects, concerns Categories: Challenge problems, requirements statements 2.1 Problem Overview Different aspects or concerns should only be composed when the result of composing them is semantically meaningful. Two classes of conflicts may occur among concerns that are to be composed which, if present during composition, may affect the correctness of the composed result: – Semantic mismatch conflicts: Semantic mismatch conflicts are ones in which the composition of two or more concerns produces semantically incorrect programs. The mismatches occur when composed concerns contain behaviors that interact in subtle (often multiple) ways, and the interactions are not addressed correctly in the composed program. We further divide the class of semantic mismatch conflicts into intentional and unintentional conflicts. Intentional conflicts are ones that are introduced deliberately by a developer—i.e., the developer designs two or more concerns or aspects to conflict (e.g., to be mutually exclusive). Unintentional conflicts, on the other hand, are ones that occur inadvertently, often due to non-obvious semantic interactions among the concerns or aspects. While these kinds of semantic mismatch conflicts look the same, we distinguish them because
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Composition of Software Architectures Christos Kloukinas
    Composition of Software Architectures Christos Kloukinas To cite this version: Christos Kloukinas. Composition of Software Architectures. Computer Science [cs]. Université Rennes 1, 2002. English. tel-00469412 HAL Id: tel-00469412 https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00469412 Submitted on 1 Apr 2010 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Composition of Software Architectures - Ph.D. Thesis - - Presented in front of the University of Rennes I, France - - English Version - Christos Kloukinas Jury Members : Jean-Pierre Banâtre Jacky Estublier Cliff Jones Valérie Issarny Nicole Lévy Joseph Sifakis February 12, 2002 Résumé Les systèmes informatiques deviennent de plus en plus complexes et doivent offrir un nombre croissant de propriétés non fonctionnelles, comme la fiabi- lité, la disponibilité, la sécurité, etc.. De telles propriétés sont habituellement fournies au moyen d’un intergiciel qui se situe entre le matériel (et le sys- tème d’exploitation) et le niveau applicatif, masquant ainsi les spécificités du système sous-jacent et permettant à des applications d’être utilisées avec dif- férentes infrastructures. Cependant, à mesure que les exigences de propriétés non fonctionnelles augmentent, les architectes système se trouvent confron- tés au cas où aucun intergiciel disponible ne fournit toutes les propriétés non fonctionnelles visées.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1543 Edited by G
    Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1543 Edited by G. Goos, J. Hartmanis and J. van Leeuwen 3 Berlin Heidelberg New York Barcelona Hong Kong London Milan Paris Singapore Tokyo Serge Demeyer Jan Bosch (Eds.) Object-Oriented Technology ECOOP ’98 Workshop Reader ECOOP ’98 Workshops, Demos, and Posters Brussels, Belgium, July 20-24, 1998 Proceedings 13 Series Editors Gerhard Goos, Karlsruhe University, Germany Juris Hartmanis, Cornell University, NY, USA Jan van Leeuwen, Utrecht University, The Netherlands Volume Editors Serge Demeyer University of Berne Neubruckstr. 10, CH-3012 Berne, Switzerland E-mail: [email protected] Jan Bosch University of Karlskrona/Ronneby, Softcenter S-372 25 Ronneby, Sweden E-mail: [email protected] Cataloging-in-Publication data applied for Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme Object-oriented technology : workshop reader, workshops, demos, and posters / ECOOP ’98, Brussels, Belgium, July 20 - 24, 1998 / Serge Demeyer ; Jan Bosch (ed.). - Berlin ; Heidelberg ; New York ; Barcelona ; Hong Kong ; London ; Milan ; Paris ; Singapore ; Tokyo : Springer, 1998 (Lecture notes in computer science ; Vol. 1543) ISBN 3-540-65460-7 CR Subject Classification (1998): D.1-3, H.2, E.3, C.2, K.4.3, K.6 ISSN 0302-9743 ISBN 3-540-65460-7 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other way, and storage in data banks. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the German Copyright Law of September 9, 1965, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer-Verlag.
    [Show full text]
  • Workshop on Multi-Dimensional Separation of Concerns in Software Engineering
    ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes vol 26 no 1 January 2001 Page 78 Workshop on Multi-Dimensional Separation of Concerns in Software Engineering Peri Tarr, William Harrison, Harold Ossher (IBM T. I. Watson Research Center, USA) Anthony Finkelstein (University College London, UK) Bashar Nuseibeh (Imperial College, UK) Dewayne Perry (University of Texas at Austin, USA) Workshop Web site: http://www.research.ibm.com/hyperspace/workshops/icse2000 ABSTRACT cem may promote some goals and activities, while impeding oth- Separation of concerns has been central to software engineering ers; thus, any criterion for decomposition will be appropriate fm for decades, yet its many advantages are still not fully realized. A some contexts, but not for all. Further, multiple kinds of concerns key reason is that traditional modularization mechanisms do not may be relevant simultaneously, and they may overlap and inter- allow simultaneous decomposition according to multiple kinds of act, as features and classes do. Thus, different concerns and (overlapping and interacting) concerns. This workshop was in- modularizations are needed for different purposes: sometimes by tended to bring together researchers working on more advanced class, sometimes by feature, sometimes by viewpoint, or aspect, moclularization mechanisms, and practitioners who have experi- role, variant, or other criterion. enced the need for them, as a step towards a common understand- These considerations imply that developers must be able to iden- ing of the issues, problems and research challenges. tify, encapsulate, modularize, and wanipulate multiple dimensions Keywords of concern simultaneously, and to introduce new concerns and Separation of concerns, decomposition, composition dimensions at any point during the software lifecycle, without suf- fering the effects of invasive modification and rearchitecture.
    [Show full text]
  • Separation of Concerns for Dependable Software Design
    Separation of Concerns for Dependable Software Design Daniel Jackson and Eunsuk Kang MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory 32 Vassar Street, Cambridge, MA 02139 [email protected] ABSTRACT tiously includes collection of detailed statistics and explicit mechanisms for adjusting the process accordingly. For ‘mixed-criticality’ systems that have both critical and non-critical functions, the greatest leverage on dependabil- Testing is used for two very different purposes. On the one ity may be at the design level. By designing so that each hand, it is used to find bugs. Structural tests exploit knowl- critical requirement has a small trusted base, the cost of the edge of the structure of the software to identify bugs in analysis required for a dependability case might be dra- known categories. A mutation test, for example, might fo- matically reduced. An implication of this approach is that cus on the possibility that the wrong operator was selected conventional object-oriented design may be a liability, be- for an expression; a regression test is designed to detect the cause it leads to ‘entanglement’, and an approach based on reoccurrence of a particular flaw. For this kind of testing, a separating services may be preferable. successful test is one that fails, and thus identifies a bug. Categories and Subject Descriptors On the other hand, testing can be used to provide evidence D.2.2 [Software Engineering]: Design Tools and Tech- of dependability. In this case, tests focused on particular niques; D.2.4 Software/Program Verification; D.2.10 De- known bug categories are less useful (since a failure might sign.
    [Show full text]
  • Experiences from Representing Software Architecture in a Large Industrial Project Using Model Driven Development
    Experiences from representing software architecture in a large industrial project using model driven development Anders Mattsson1 Björn Lundell2 Brian Lings2 Brian Fitzgerald3 1 Combitech AB, P.O. Box 1017, SE-551 11 JÖNKÖPING, Sweden [email protected] 2 University of Skövde, P.O. Box 408, SE-541 28 SKÖVDE, Sweden {bjorn.lundell, brian.lings}@his.se 3 Lero – the Irish Software Engineering Research Centre University of Limerick, Ireland [email protected] Abstract There exist several approaches to MDD such as OMG’s MDA [5], Domain-Oriented Programming [6], A basic idea of Model Driven Development (MDD) and Software Factories [7] from Microsoft. A basic is to capture all important design information in a set idea of MDD is to capture all important design of formal or semi formal models that are automatically information in a set of formal or semi formal models kept consistent by tools. This paper reports on that are automatically kept consistent by tools to raise industrial experience from use of MDD and shows that the level of abstraction at which the developers work the approach needs improvements regarding the and to eliminate time consuming and error prone architecture since there are no suggested ways to manual work in keeping different design artifacts formalize design rules which are an important part of consistent, or to cite Brent Hailpern and Peri Tarr: the architecture. Instead, one has to rely on time “The primary goal is to raise the level of abstraction consuming and error prone manual interpretations, at which developers operate and, in doing so, reviews and reworkings to keep the system consistent reduce both the amount of developer effort and the with the architecture.
    [Show full text]
  • First Call for Papers
    Call for Papers Research th 29 International Conference on Software Engineering Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, 20-26 May 2007 ICSE General Chair John Knight, U Virginia, USA ICSE is the premier forum for researchers, practitioners and educators to present and discuss the most recent innovations, trends, results, experiences and concerns in the field of software engineering. Research Program Co-Chairs Wolfgang Emmerich, UCL, UK The theme of ICSE 2007 is Developing Dependable Software, with which we acknowledge the increasingly Gregg Rothermel, U Nebraska-Lincoln, USA crucial role the engineering of software plays in business, healthcare, government and society at-large. The theme also highlights the growing responsibility our profession and its members are expected to assume. As Program Committee such, an important goal of this meeting will be to reach out to other engineering and scientific disciplines that Jo Atlee, U Waterloo, Canada have an impact upon or benefit from software engineering know-how. Judith Bishop, U Pretoria, South Africa We invite high quality submissions of technical papers describing original and unpublished results of Victor Braberman, U Buenos Aires, Argentina theoretical, empirical, conceptual, and experimental software engineering research. Incremental improvements Margaret Burnett, Oregon State U, USA over previously published work should have been evaluated through systematic empirical or experimental SC Cheung, HongKong U S T, HongKong evaluation. Submissions of papers describing groundbreaking approaches to
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Technical Debt in Software Development: Report on the 2
    ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes Page 33 September 2011 Volume 36 Number 5 Managing Technical Debt in Software tion, while the term was originally coined in reference to coding practices, today the metaphor is applied more broadly across the Development: project life cycle and may include practices of refactoring [5], test- Report on the 2nd International Work- driven development [6], iteration management [4][7][12], software architecture [2][8], and software craftsmanship [10]. shop on Managing Technical Debt, The concept of technical debt can provide a basis on which the held at ICSE 2011 various stakeholders can reason about the best course of action for Ipek Ozkaya,1 Philippe Kruchten,2 Robert L. Nord1, the evolution of a software product. As reflected by the composi- 1 tion of our program committee that includes practitioners, consul- and Nanette Brown 1 tants, and researchers, this area has significant relevance to Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon practicing software engineers and software engineering. University, USA A first workshop on technical debt was held at the Software En- ozkaya, rn, [email protected] gineering Institute in Pittsburgh on June 2 to 4, 2010. Its outcomes 2 University of British Columbia, Canada were published as a research position paper [1] summarizing the [email protected] open research questions in the area. DOI: 10.1145/2020976.2020979 The goal of the second workshop was to come up with a more http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2020976.2020979 in-depth understanding of technical debt, its definition(s), charac- teristics, and various forms. One objective related to this goal was Abstract to understand the processes that lead to technical debt and its indi- The technical debt metaphor is gaining significant traction in the cators, such as degrading system quality and inability to maintain software development community as a way to understand and code.
    [Show full text]
  • Projectional Editing of Software Product Lines—The Peopl Approach
    PhD-FSTC-2017-39 The Faculty of Sciences, Technology and Communication DISSERTATION Defense held on 21/07/2017 in Luxembourg to obtain the degree of DOCTEUR DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DU LUXEMBOURG EN INFORMATIQUE by Benjamin BEHRINGER Born on 9 July 1984 in Essen (Germany) PROJECTIONAL EDITING OF SOFTWARE PRODUCT LINES– THE PEOPL APPROACH Dissertation defense committee Dr Steffen Rothkugel, Dissertation Supervisor Associate Professor, Université du Luxembourg Dr Thorsten Berger Assistant Professor, University of Gothenburg and Chalmers University of Technology Dr Denis Zampunieris, Chairman Professor, Université du Luxembourg Dr Ina Schäfer Professor, Technische Universität Braunschweig Dr Martina Lehser, Vice Chairman Professor, Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft des Saarlandes (host institution) Benjamin BEHRINGER: Projectional Editing of Software Product Lines— The PEoPL Approach, © July 2017 ABSTRACT The features of a software product line—a portfolio of system variants—can be realized using various variability implementation techniques. Each technique represents a feature’s software artifacts (a.k.a. feature artifacts) differently, typically classified into anno- tative and modular variability representations, each with distinct advantages and disadvantages. Annotative representations, such as C preprocessor annotations, are easy to apply, but clutter source code and hinder program comprehension. Modular representations, such as feature modules, support comprehension, but are difficult to realize. Most importantly, to engineer feature artifacts, developers need to choose one representation and adhere to it for evolving and maintaining the same artifacts. We present the approach PEoPL (Projectional Editing of Product Lines), which combines the advantages of different variability rep- resentations. When engineering a feature artifact, developers can choose the most-suited representation for the given task, switch representations on demand, and even use different representations in parallel.
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Organizing Software Architectures
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Helsingin yliopiston digitaalinen arkisto Department of Computer Science Series of Publications A Report A-2013-13 Self-Organizing Software Architectures Pietu Pohjalainen To be presented, with the permission of the Faculty of Science of the University of Helsinki, for public criticism in Auditorium XV, University Main Building, on 13th December 2013, at noon. University of Helsinki Finland Supervisors Jukka Paakki, University of Helsinki, Finland Juha Taina, University of Helsinki, Finland Pre-examiners G¨orelHedin, Lund University, Sweden Jyrki Nummenmaa, University of Tampere, Finland Opponent Kai Koskimies, Tampere University of Technology, Finland Custos Jukka Paakki, University of Helsinki, Finland Contact information Department of Computer Science P.O. Box 68 (Gustaf H¨allstr¨ominkatu 2b) FI-00014 University of Helsinki Finland Email address: [email protected].fi URL: http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/ Telephone: +358 9 1911, telefax: +358 9 191 51120 Copyright © 2013 Pietu Pohjalainen ISSN 1238-8645 ISBN 978-952-10-9424-8 (paperback) ISBN 978-952-10-9425-5 (PDF) Computing Reviews (1998) Classification: D.2.11, D.1.2, D1.5, D.2.2, D.2.3, D.2.7, D.2.13 Helsinki 2013 Unigrafia Self-Organizing Software Architectures Pietu Pohjalainen Department of Computer Science P.O. Box 68, FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland pietu.pohjalainen@iki.fi PhD Thesis, Series of Publications A, Report A-2013-13 Helsinki, December 2013, 114 + 71 pages ISSN 1238-8645 ISBN 978-952-10-9424-8 (paperback) ISBN 978-952-10-9425-5 (PDF) Abstract Looking at engineering productivity is a source for improving the state of software engineering.
    [Show full text]
  • Eindhoven University of Technology MASTER an Agile Approach
    Eindhoven University of Technology MASTER An agile approach supported by a tool environment for the development of software components Zwartjes, G.; van Geffen, J. Award date: 2005 Link to publication Disclaimer This document contains a student thesis (bachelor's or master's), as authored by a student at Eindhoven University of Technology. Student theses are made available in the TU/e repository upon obtaining the required degree. The grade received is not published on the document as presented in the repository. The required complexity or quality of research of student theses may vary by program, and the required minimum study period may vary in duration. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITEIT EINDHOVEN Department of Mathematics and Computing Science MASTER’S THESIS An Agile Approach Supported by a Tool Environment for the Development of Software Components Gertjan Zwartjes and Joost van Geffen fg.zwartjes, [email protected] Supervisor: Prof. Prof. Dr. B.W. Watson ∗+ [email protected] External advisers: Prof. Dr. D. G. Kourie +, Dr. A. Boake + [email protected], [email protected] ∗ Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Aspects and GRS-Based AOD the GREAT Transformation Framework
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 82 No. 5 (2003) URL: http://www.elsevier.nl/locate/entcs/volume82.html Design Aspects and GRS-based AOD The GREAT transformation framework Alexander Christoph1 SWT Forschungszentrum Informatik2 (FZI) Karlsruhe, Germany 1. Email: [email protected] 2. URL: http://www.fzi.de Abstract In analogy to Aspect Oriented Programming (AOP), Aspect Oriented Design (AOD) is a means of modelling different concerns in software designs independently from each other and from the design itself. Different approaches to AOD formalize design aspects as new design entities. Un- fortunately, these approaches are difficult to use or become unhandy with existing or large de- signs. This paper presents the rule-based design transformation framework GREAT that can be used to describe aspects in a formal way and generate weaving code from aspect descriptions. 1 Introduction The separation of concerns on the level of source code has been studied in a number of papers [10], [12]. The key issue of aspect oriented programming (AOP, [9]) is to realize different con- cepts separately from the implementation of the program. These concepts are later woven into the program, either prior to or during its execution. AOP aspects are defined as patterns over the program call graph, i.e. the execution view of the software. This facilitates the developer to declare additional behaviour before, during or after a method has been called. In [5] the authors explain that modelling different concerns separately during the design proc- ess can be useful, too.
    [Show full text]
  • Cleanroom Software Development Using Aspect - Oriented Programming
    Cleanroom Software Development using Aspect - Oriented Programming Natacha Govan Universidade Nova de Lisboa – Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia [email protected] Abstract CSD software engineering is clamed to yield software The issue of this article is pertaining with, Cleanroom that is correct by mathematically sound design, and Software Development using Aspect–Oriented software that is certified by statistically-valid testing. Programming. Reduced cycle time results from an incremental Cleanroom Software Development (CSD) is an development strategy and the avoidance of rework engineering process to develop software that is high in [Foreman 05]. quality and with a certified level of reliability. It is well-documented that significant differences in cost Aspect-Oriented Programming (AOP), also known as are associated with errors found at different stages of the Aspect-Oriented Software Development (AOSD), is an software life cycle. By detecting errors as early as approach to software development, which tends to possible, CSD reduces the cost of errors during separate concerns, or breaking a program into distinct development and the incidence of failures during features. operation; thus the overall life cycle cost of software The understanding of the meaning and the usage as well developed under CSD can be expected to be far lower as the functionality of the CSD can be very helpful, as it than industry average [Foreman 05]. can enable one to produce a software and in a developing process. Typical characteristics of CSD include: The present paper analyses the relationship that may • Software development based on formal methods exist between the Cleanroom Software Development and • Incremental implementation under statistical the Aspect - Oriented Programming.
    [Show full text]