An Overview of AspectJ

  • Gregor Kiczales
  • Erik Hilsdale
  • Jim Hugunin
  • Mik Kersten
  • Jeffrey Palm
  • William G. Griswold
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2072)

Abstract

AspectJ is a simple and practical aspect-oriented extension to Java.. With just a few new constructs, AspectJ provides support for modular implementation of a range of crosscutting concerns. In AspectJ’s dynamic join point model, join points are well-defined points in the execution of the program; pointcuts are collections of join points; advice are special method-like constructs that can be attached to pointcuts; and aspects are modular units of crosscutting implementation, comprising pointcuts, advice, and ordinary Java member declarations. AspectJ code is compiled into standard Java bytecode. Simple extensions to existing Java development environments make it possible to browse the crosscutting structure of aspects in the same kind of way as one browses the inheritance structure of classes. Several examples show that AspectJ is powerful, and that programs written using it are easy to understand.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Proceedings of the Conference on Domain-Specific Languages (DSL). USENIX, Santa Barbara, California, USA (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bobrow, D.G., et al.: CommonLoops: Merging Lisp and Object-Oriented Programming. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA). ACM, Portland, Oregon (1986) 17–29Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cannon, H.: Flavors: A non-hierarchical approach to object-oriented programming. Symbolics Inc.(1982)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coady, Y., G. Kiczales, and M. Feeley: Exploring an Aspect-Oriented Approach to Operating System Code. In: Position paper for the Advanced Separation of Concerns Workshop at the Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA). ACM, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    DeVolder, K.: Aspect-Oriented Logic Meta Programming. In: Meta-Level Architectures and Reflection, Reflection’99. Springer, Saint-Malo, France (1999) 250–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Filman, R.E. and D.P. Friedman: Aspect-Oriented Programming is Quantification and Obliviousness. In: Position paper for the Advanced Separation of Concerns Workshop at the Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA). ACM, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Friendly, L.: Design of Javadoc. In: The Design of Distributed Hyperlinked Programming Documentation (IWHD). Springer-Verlag, Montpellier, France (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goldberg, A.: Smalltalk-80: The Interactive Programming environment. Addisson-Wesley, Reading MA (1984)MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goldberg, A. and D. Robson: Smalltalk-80: The Language and Its Implementation. Addison-Wesley, (1983)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Green, T.R.G. and M. Petre: Usability analysis of visual programming environments: a’ cognitive dimensions’ approach. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing. 7,2. (1996) 131–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Griswold, D.: The Java HotSpot Virtual Machine Architecture. Sun Microsystems, Inc.(1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ichisugi, Y., S. Matsuoka, and A. Yonezawa: RbCl: A reflective object-oriented concurrent language without a run-time kernel. In: International Workshop on New Models for Software Architecture (IMSA): Reflection and Meta-Level Architecture. Tama City, Tokyo (1992) 24–35Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Irwin, J., et al.: Aspect-Oriented Programming of Sparse Matrix Code. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Computing in Object-Oriented Parallel Environments (ISCOPE). Springer, Marina del Rey, CA, USA (1997) 249–256Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kiczales, G., et al.: Aspect-Oriented Programming. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP). Springer-Verlag, Finland (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kiczales, G. and L. Rodriguez: Efficient Method Dispatch in PCL. In: LISP and Functional Programming. ACM Press, Nice, France (1990) 99–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lewis, J., et al.: Implicit Parameters: Dynamic Scoping with Static Types. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages. Boston, Massachusetts (2000) 108–118Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lieberherr, K.J.: Adaptive Object-Oriented Software: The Demeter Method with Propagation Patterns. PWS Publishing Company, Boston (1996)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lopes, C.V. and G. Kiczales: D: A Language Framework for Distributed Programming. Technical Report SPL97-010, P9710047. Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, Palo Alto, CA (1997)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maes, P.: Concepts and Experiments in Computational Reflection. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA). ACM, Orlando, Florida (1987) 147–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Masuhara, H., S. Matsuoka, and A. Yonezawa: Designing an OO reflective language for massively-parallel processors. In: Position paper for the workshop on Object-Oriented Reflection and Metalevel Architectures at the Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA). Washington, DC (1993)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Matsuoka, S., T. Watanabe, and A. Yonezawa: Hybrid group reflective architecture for object-oriented concurrent reflective programming. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP). Springer, Geneva, Switzerland (1991) 231–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McAffer, J.: The CodA MOP. In: Position paper for the workshop on Object-Oriented Reflection and Metalevel Architectures at the Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA),. Washington, DC (1993)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mendhekar, A., G. Kiczales, and J. Lamping: RG: A Case-Study for Aspect-Oriented Programming. Technical Report SPL97-009, P9710044. Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, Palo Alto, CA (1997)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mezini, M. and K.J. Lieberherr: Adaptive Plug-and-Play Components for Evolutionary Software Development. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA). ACM, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (1998) 97–116Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moon, D.A.: Object-Oriented Programming with Flavors. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA). ACM, Portland, Oregon (1986) 1–8Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Okamura, H., Y. Ishikawa, and M. Tokoro: Metalevel Decomposition in AL-1/D. In: International Symposium on Object Technologies for Advanced Software. Springer Verlag, (1993) 110–127Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ossher, H., et al.: Subject-Oriented Composition Rules. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA). ACM, Austin, Texas (1995) 235–250Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ossher, H. and P.L. Tarr: Hyper/J: multi-dimensional separation of concerns for Java. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). ACM, Limerick, Ireland (2000) 734–737Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Parnas, D.L.: On the Criteria To Be Used in Decomposing Systems Into Modules. Communications of the ACM. 15,12. (1972) 1053–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Parnas, D.L.: Software Engineering or Methods for the Multi-Person Construction of Multi-Version Programs. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Programming Methodology. (1974)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shneiderman, B.: Direct Manipulation: A step beyond Programming languages, In: Human-Computer Interaction: A Multidisciplinary Approach, R.M. Baecker and W.A.S. Buxton, Editors. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.: Los Altos, CA (1983) 461–467Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Smith, B.C.: Reflection and Semantics in a Procedural Language, PhD Thesis. M.I.T(1982)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Smith, B.C.: Reflection and Semantics in LISP. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL). ACM, (1984) 23–35Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Steele, G.L.: Common Lisp the Language. 2nd ed. Digital Press, (1990) 1029Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stroustrup, B.: The C++ Programming Language. 3rd ed. Addison-Wesley, (1997)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tarr, P.L., et al.: N Degrees of Separation: Multi-Dimensional Separation of Concerns. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). ACM, Los Angeles, CA (1999) 107–119Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Walker, R. and G. Murphy: Implicit Context: Easing Software Evolution and Reuse. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE). ACM, San Diego, California (2000)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Watanabe, T. and A. Yonezawa: Reflection in an object-oriented concurrent language. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA). ACM, San Diego, CA (1988) 306–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregor Kiczales
    • 1
  • Erik Hilsdale
    • 2
  • Jim Hugunin
    • 2
  • Mik Kersten
    • 2
  • Jeffrey Palm
    • 2
  • William G. Griswold
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Xerox Palo Alto Research CenterUSA La JollaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of CaliforniaSan Diego La JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations