Semantic vs. syntactic compositions in aspect-oriented requirements engineering: an empirical study

ABSTRACT

Most current aspect composition mechanisms rely on syntactic references to the base modules or wildcard mechanisms quantifying over such syntactic references in pointcut expressions. This leads to the well-known problem of pointcut fragility. Semantics-based composition mechanisms aim to alleviate such fragility by focusing on the meaning and intention of the composition hence avoiding strong syntactic dependencies on the base modules. However, to date, there are no empirical studies validating whether semantics based composition mechanisms are indeed more expressive and less fragile compared to their syntax-based counterparts. In this paper we present a first study comparing semantics- and syntax-based composition mechanisms in aspect-oriented requirements engineering (AORE). In our empirical study the semantics-based compositions examined were found to be indeed more expressive and less fragile. The semantics-based compositions in the study also required one to reason about composition interdependencies early on hence potentially reducing the overhead of revisions arising from later trade-off analysis and stakeholder negotiations. However, this added to the overhead of specifying the compositions themselves. Furthermore, since the semantics-based compositions considered in the study were based on natural language analysis, they required initial effort investment into lexicon building as well as strongly depended on advanced tool support to expose the natural language semantics.

REFERENCES

• 1: G. Antoniol, Y.--G. Guéhéneuc, E. Merlo, and P. Tonella. Mining the lexicon used by programmers during sofware evolution. In ICSM, pages 14---23, 2007.
• 2: E. Baniassad and S. Clarke. Theme: An approach for aspect--oriented analysis and design, 2004.
• 3: S. R. Chidamber , C. F. Kemerer, A Metrics Suite for Object Oriented Design, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.20 n.6, p.476-493, June 1994 [doi>10.1109/32.295895]
• 4: R. Chitchyan, A. Rashid, M. Pinto, and L. Fuentes. Compass: composition-centric mapping of aspectual requirements to architecture. In Transactions on Aspect-Oriented Software Development IV, LNCS, pages 3--53. Springer, Feb 2007.
• 5: Ruzanna Chitchyan , Awais Rashid , Paul Rayson , Robert Waters, Semantics-based composition for aspect-oriented requirements engineering, Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Aspect-oriented software development, March 12-16, 2007, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [doi>10.1145/1218563.1218569]
• 6: L. Chung, B. A. Nixon, E. Yu, and J. Mylopoulos. Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering. Springer, October 1999.
• 7: C. Gibbs, C. R. Liu, and Y. Coady. Sustainable system infrastructure and big bang evolution: Can aspects keep pace? In ECOOP, pages 241--261, 2005.
• 8: P. Greenwood, T. T. Bartolomei, E. Figueiredo, M. Dósea, A. F. Garcia, N. Cacho, C. Sant'Anna, S. Soares, P. Borba, U. Kulesza, and A. Rashid. On the impact of aspectual decompositions on design stability: An empirical study. In ECOOP, pages 176--200, 2007.
• 9: A. Kellens, K. Mens, J. Brichau, and K. Gybels. Managing the evolution of aspect-oriented software with model-based pointcuts. In ECOOP, pages 501--525, 2006.
• 10: Roman Knöll , Mira Mezini, Pegasus: first steps toward a naturalistic programming language, Companion to the 21st ACM SIGPLAN symposium on Object-oriented programming systems, languages, and applications, October 22-26, 2006, Portland, Oregon, USA [doi>10.1145/1176617.1176628]
• 11: Cristina Videira Lopes , Paul Dourish , David H. Lorenz , Karl Lieberherr, Beyond AOP: toward naturalistic programming, Companion of the 18th annual ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programming, systems, languages, and applications, October 26-30, 2003, Anaheim, CA, USA [doi>10.1145/949344.949400]
• 12: I. Nagy, L. Bergmans, and M. Aksit. Composing aspects at shared join points. In NODe 2005, GSEM 2005, volume p-69 of LNI69, pages 19--38, 2005.
• 13: K. Ostermann, M. Mezini, and C. Bockisch. Expressive pointcuts for increased modularity. In ECOOP, pages 214--240, 2005.
• 14: Awais Rashid , Ana Moreira , Joāo Araújo, Modularisation and composition of aspectual requirements, Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Aspect-oriented software development, p.11-20, March 17-21, 2003, Boston, Massachusetts [doi>10.1145/643603.643605]
• 15: Americo Sampaio , Phil Greenwood , Alessandro F. Garcia , Awais Rashid, A Comparative Study of Aspect-Oriented Requirements Engineering Approaches, Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, p.166-175, September 20-21, 2007 [doi>10.1109/ESEM.2007.3]
• 16: L. Silva. A Guided Strategy the Modeling Aspect-Oriented Requirements (in Portuguese). PhD, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio), 2006.
• 17: L. Silva, T. Batista, A. Garcia, A. Medeiros, and L. Minora. On the symbiosis of aspect-oriented requirements and architectural descriptions. pages 75--93. 2007.
• 18: Sergio Soares , Eduardo Laureano , Paulo Borba, Implementing distribution and persistence aspects with aspectJ, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, v.37 n.11, November 2002
• 19: Dominik Stein , Stefan Hanenberg , Rainer Unland, Expressing different conceptual models of join point selections in aspect-oriented design, Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Aspect-oriented software development, March 20-24, 2006, Bonn, Germany [doi>10.1145/1119655.1119661]
• 20: W. P. Stevens, G. J. Myers, and L. L. Constantine. Structured design. IBM Systems Journal, 13(2):115--139, 1974.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.1 Requirements/Specifications
          Subjects: Methodologies (e.g., object-oriented, structured)

Additional Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.8 Metrics
          Subjects: Performance measures

General Terms:
Experimentation, Measurement

Keywords:
aspect-oriented composition specification, aspect-oriented requirements engineering, evaluation, requirements metrics