ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Expressing different conceptual models of join point selections in aspect-oriented design
Full text PdfPdf (318 KB)
Source Aspect-oriented software development archive
Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Aspect-oriented software development table of contents
Bonn, Germany
SESSION: Concern modelling and design table of contents
Pages: 15 - 26  
Year of Publication: 2006
ISBN:1-59593-300-X
Authors
Dominik Stein  University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany
Stefan Hanenberg  University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany
Rainer Unland  University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany
Sponsor
AOSD-Europe : European Network of Excellent on Aspect-oriented Software Development
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 16,   Downloads (12 Months): 130,   Citation Count: 18
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1119655.1119661
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

When specifying pointcuts, i.e. join point selections, in Aspect-Oriented Software Development, developers have in different situations different conceptual models in mind. Aspect-oriented programming languages are usually capable to support only a small subset of them, but not all. In order to communicate aspect-oriented design among developers, though, it is inevitable that the underlying conceptual model used in its join point selections remains unchanged. As a solution to this dilemma, we detail three different conceptual models in this paper that are frequently used in aspect-oriented applications. These models are illustrated using sample implementations from existing literature. Then, we introduce corresponding modeling notations based on Join Point Designation Diagrams (JPDDs) which are capable to express join point selections complying to those models. Finally, we discuss the suitability of these notations to express a desired join point selection.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

1
 
2
AspectJ Team, The AspectJ Programming Guide, v. 1.2.1, http://eclipse.org/aspectj/
 
3
Baniassad, E., Clarke, S., Aspect-Oriented Analysis and Design - The Theme Approach, Addison-Wesley, 2005
 
4
Bergmans, L., The Composition Filters Object Model, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Twente, 1994
 
5
 
6
De Fraine, B., Vanderperren, W., Suvée, D., Brichau, J., Jumping Aspects Revisited, DAW Workshop, at: AOSD 2005, Chicago, IL, March 2005
7
 
8
European Interactive Workshop on Aspects in Software (EIWAS), Brussels, Belgium, September 2005, http://prog.vub.ac.be/events/eiwas2005/
 
9
Filman, R., Elrad, T., Clarke, S., Aksit, M., Aspect-Oriented Software Development, Addison-Wesley, 2004
 
10
Filman, R., Friedman, D., Aspect-Oriented Programming is Quantification and Obliviousness, in: {9}, pp. 21--35
11
 
12
Hanenberg, S., Schmidmeier, A., AspectJ Idioms for Aspect-Oriented Software Construction, in: Proc. of EuroPLoP'03, June, 25--29, 2003, Irsee, Germany, pp. 617--644
13
14
15
 
16
 
17
Kalnins, A., Barzdins, J., Celms, E., Model Transformation Language MOLA, in: Proc. of MDA-FA '04, Linköping, Sweden, June 2004, Springer, LNCS 3599, pp. 62--76
 
18
Kandé, M. M., PhD Thesis, EPFL, Lausanne, Swiss, 2003
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
Lieberherr, K., Lorenz, D., Mezini, M., Programming with Aspectual Components, TR NU-CCS-99-01, Northeastern University, 1999
 
24
Mahoney, M., Bader, A., Aldawud, O., Elrad, T., Using Aspects to Abstract and Modularize Statecharts, in: Workshop on Aspect-Oriented Modeling, UML'04, Lisbon, Portugal, October 2004
 
25
Masuhara, H., Kawauchi, K., Dataflow Pointcut in Aspect-Oriented Programming, in Proc. of APLAS '03, Beijing, China, November 2003, Springer, LNCS 2895, pp. 105--121
 
26
Masuhara, H., Kiczales, G., Dutchyn, Chr., A Compilation and Optimization Model for Aspect-Oriented Programs, in: Proc. of CC 2003, Warsaw, Poland, Apr. 2003, LNCS 2622, pp. 46--60
27
 
28
OMG, MDA Guide Version 1.0, 2003 (OMG Document omg/2003-05-01)
 
29
OMG, Request for Proposal: MOF 2.0 Query / Views / Transformations RFP, 2002 (OMG Document ad/2002-04-10)
 
30
OMG, Unified Modeling Language Specification, Version 1.5, 2003 (OMG Document formal/03-03-01)
 
31
Ostermann, K., Mezini, M., Bockisch, Chr., Expressive Pointcuts for Increased Modularity, in: Proc. of ECOOP'05, Glasgow, UK, July 2005, ACM
 
32
QVT-Merge Group, Revised submission for MOF 2.0 Query / Views / Transformations RFP, 2. March 2005 (OMG Document ad/2005-03-02)
33
34
 
35
Stein, D., Hanenberg, S., Unland, R., Query Models, in Proc. of UML '04, Lisbon, Portugal, October 2004, Springer, LNCS 3273, pp. 98--112
 
36
Stein, D., Hanenberg, S., Unland, R., A Graphical Notation to Specify Model Queries for MDA Transformations on UML Models, in: Proc. of MDA-FA '04, Linköping, Sweden, June 2004, Springer, LNCS 3599, pp. 77--92
 
37
Stein, D., Hanenberg, S., Unland, R., On Relationships between Query Models, in: Proc. of ECMDA-FA 2005, Nuremberg, Germany, November 2005, Springer, LNCS 3748, pp. 254--268
38
 
39
Tarr, P., Ossher, H., Hyper/J User and Installation Manual, IBM Corp., 2000
 
40
Zloof, M., Query-by-Example: A Data Base Language, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 16(4), 1977, pp. 324--343

CITED BY  18

Collaborative Colleagues:
Dominik Stein: colleagues
Stefan Hanenberg: colleagues
Rainer Unland: colleagues