Advertisement

Abstract

Proponents of aspect orientation have successfully seeded the impression that aspects — like objects — are so fundamental a notion that they should pervade all phases and artefacts of the software development process. Aspect orientation has therefore proliferated from programming to design to analysis to requirements, sparing neither software processes nor their favourite languages. Since modelling plays an important role in software engineering, much effort is currently being invested in making modelling languages aspect ready. However, based on an observed lack of examples for domain level (or functional) aspects this paper argues the case against the omnipresence of aspects, particularly the existence of aspects in domain models, and offers some informal arguments as well as a semiformal proof in favour of the claims made.

Keywords

Modelling Language Domain Model Problem Domain Early Aspect Aspect Orientation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aksit, M., Bergmans, L., Vural, S.: An object-oriented language-database integration model: the composition-filters approach. In: Lehrmann Madsen, O. (ed.) ECOOP 1992. LNCS, vol. 615, pp. 372–395. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aksit, M., Wakita, K., Bosch, J., Bergmans, L., Yonezawa, A.: Abstracting object-interactions using composition-filters. In: Guerraoui, R., Nierstrasz, O., Riveill, M. (eds.) ECOOP-WS 1993. LNCS, vol. 791, pp. 152–184. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Araújo, J., Moreira, A., Brito, I., Rashid, A.: Aspect-oriented requirements with UML. In: Second International Workshop on Aspect-Oriented Modelling with UML (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baniassad, E.L.A., Clarke, S.: Theme: an approach for aspect-oriented analysis and design. In: ICSE 2004, pp. 158–167 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Edwards, J., Jackson, D., Torlak, E.: A type system for object models. In: Taylor, R.N., Dwyer, M.B. (eds.) Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (ACM 2004), pp. 189–199 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elrad, T., Aldawud, O., Bader, A.: A UML profile for aspect oriented modeling. In: OOPSLA 2001 workshop on Aspect Oriented Programming (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ernst, E., Lorenz, D.H.: Aspects and polymorphism in AspectJ. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Aspect-Oriented Software Development (ACM 2003), pp. 150–157 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Filman, R.E., Friedman, D.P.: Aspect-oriented programming is quantification and obliviousness. In: OOPSLA Workshop on Advanced Separation of Concerns, Minneapolis (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fowler, M.: Refactorings: Improving the Design of Existing Code. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Graversen, K.B., Østerbye, K.: Aspect modelling as role modelling. In: OOPSLA 2002 Workshop on Tool Support for Aspect Oriented Software Development (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hanenberg, S., Unland, R.: Roles and aspects: similarities, differences, and synergetic potential. In: Bellahsène, Z., Patel, D., Rolland, C. (eds.) OOIS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2425, pp. 507–520. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harrison, W.H., Ossher, H.: Subject-oriented programming (a critique of pure objects). In: 8th OOPSLA, pp. 411–428 (1993)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kande, M., Kienzle, J.: A Strohmeyer From AOP to UML: towards an aspect-oriented architectural modeling approach Technical Report, Swiss Federal Institute of Technololgy (Lausanne (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kendall, E.A.: Role model designs and implementations with Aspect-Oriented Programming. In: OOPSLA, pp. 353–369 (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lieberherr, K.J., Riel, A.J.: Demeter: a case study of software growth through parameterized classes. In: 10th ICSE, pp. 254–264 (1988)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lieberherr, K.J., Lorenz, D.H., Ovlinger, J.: Aspectual collaborations: combining modules and aspects. The Computer Journal 46(5), 542–565 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lopes, C.V., Dourish, P., Lorenz, D.H., Lieberherr, K.: Beyond AOP: toward naturalistic programming. In: OOPSLA 2003 Special Track on Onward! Seeking New Paradigms & New Thinking (ACM 2003), pp. 198–207 (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Oberschelp, A.: Untersuchungen zur mehrsortigen Quantorenlogik. Mathematische Annalen 145, 297–333 (1962)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    Paech, B., Rumpe, B.: A new concept of refinement used for behaviour modelling with automata. In: Naftalin, M., Denvir, B.T., Bertran, M. (eds.) FME 1994. LNCS, vol. 873, pp. 154–174. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rashid, A., Sawyer, P.: Aspect-orientation and database systems: an effective customisation approach. IEE Proceedings – Software 148(5), 156–164 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rashid, A., Sawyer, P., Moreira, A.M.D., Araújo, J.: Early aspects: a model for Aspect-Oriented Requirements Engineering. In: RE, pp. 199–202 (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reenskaug, T., Wold, P., Lehene, O.A.: Working with Objects – The OOram Software Engineering Method. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1996)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Steimann, F.: On the representation of roles in object-oriented and conceptual modelling. Data & Knowledge Engineering 35(1), 83–106 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Steimann, F.: A radical revision of UML’s role concept. In: Evans, A., Kent, S., Selic, B. (eds.) UML 2000. LNCS, vol. 1939, pp. 194–209. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Steimann, F.: Role = Interface: a merger of concepts. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming 14(4), 23–32 (2001)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Steimann, F., Kühne, T.: A radical reduction of UML’s core semantics. In: Jézéquel, J.-M., Hussmann, H., Cook, S. (eds.) UML 2002. LNCS, vol. 2460, pp. 34–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tarski, A.: The semantic conception of truth and the foundations of semantics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 4 (1944)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Whitehead, A.N., Russell, B.: Principia Mathematica. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1910)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Friedrich Steimann
    • 1
  1. 1.Fachbereich Informatik, Lehrgebiet ProgrammiersystemeFernuniversität in HagenHagen

Personalised recommendations