Arnaud Hubaux
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
The need for flexible customization of large feature-rich software systems, according to requirements of various stakeholders, has become an important problem in software development. Among the many software engineering approaches dealing with variability management, the notion of Software Product Line (SPL) has emerged as a major unifying concept. Drawing from established disciplines of manufacturing, SPL approaches aim to design repertoires of software artifacts, from which customized software systems for specific stakeholder requirements can be developed. A major difficulty SPL approaches attempt to address is the modularization of software artifacts, which reconciles the user's needs for certain features and the development and technical constraints. Towards this end, many SPL approaches use feature diagrams to describe possible configurations of a feature set. There have been several proposals for feature diagram languages with varying degrees of expressiveness, intuitiveness, and precision. However, these feature diagram languages have limited scalability when applied to realistic software systems. This article provides a systematic survey of various concerns of feature diagrams and ways in which concerns have been separated. The survey shows how the uncertainty in the purpose of feature diagram languages creates both conceptual and practical limitations to scalability of those languages.
- Acher, M., Collet, P., Lahire, P., and France, R. 2009. Composing feature models. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Software Language Engineering (SLE'09). Springer, 62--81. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Ahmed, F. and Capretz, L. F. 2006. Maturity assessment framework for business dimension of software product family. Int. J. Interoper. Bus. Inf. Syst. 1, 1, 9--32.Google Scholar
- Alferez, M., Santos, J., Moreira, A., Garcia, A., Kulesza, U., Araujo, J., and Amaral, V. 2009. Multi-view composition language for software product line requirements. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Software Language Engineering (SLE'09), M. van den Brand, D. Gasevic, and J. Gray, Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5969, Springer, 103--122. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Alves, V., Matos, P., Cole, L., Vasconcelos, A., Borba, P., and Ramalho, G. 2007. Extracting and evolving code in product lines with aspect-oriented programming. Trans. Aspect-Orient. Softw. Devel. 4, 117--142.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Apel, S., Leich, T., and Saake, G. 2006. Aspectual mixin layers: Aspects and features in concert. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'06). 122--131. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bashroush, R., Spence, I. T. A., Kilpatrick, P., Brown, T., and Gillan, C. 2008. A multiple views model for variability management in software product lines. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Variability Modeling of Software-Intensive Systems. 101--110.Google Scholar
- Bast, H. 2010. Completesearch: http://dblp.mpi-inf.mpg.de/dblp-mirror/index.php.Google Scholar
- Batista, T. V., Bastarrica, M. C., Soares, S., and Da Silva, L. F. 2008. A marriage of mdd and early aspects in software product line development. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Early Aspects (EA'08) collocated with the Software Product Line Conference (SPLC'08). 97--103.Google Scholar
- Batory, D., Liu, J., and Sarvela, J. N. 2003. Refinements and multi-dimensional separation of concerns. SIGSOFT Softw. Engin. Not. 28, 5, 48--57. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Batory, D. S. 2005. Feature models, grammars, and propositional formulas. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Software Product Lines (SPLC'05). 7--20. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Batory, D. S. and Borger, E. 2008. Modularizing theorems for software product lines: The jbook case study. J. Univers. Comput. Sci. 14, 12, 2059--2082.Google Scholar
- Benavides, D., Segura, S., and Ruiz-Cortes, A. 2010. Automated analysis of feature models 20 years later: A literature review. Inf. Syst. 35, 6, 615--636. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Berger, T., She, S., Lotufo, R., Wasowski, A., and Czarnecki, K. 2010. Variability modeling in the real: A perspective from the operating systems domain. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE'10). ACM Press, New York, 73--82. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Beuche, D. 2008. Modeling and building software product lines with pure variants. In Proceedings of the 12th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC'08). IEEE Computer Society, 358. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Brereton, P., Kitchenham, B. A., Budgen, D., Turner, M., and Khalil, M. 2007. Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain. J. Syst. Softw. 80, 4, 571--583. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Brown, T. J., Spence, I. T. A., and Kilpatrick, P. 2003. A relational architecture description language for software families. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Software Product-Family Engineering (PFE'03). F. van der Linden, Ed., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3014, Springer, 282--295.Google Scholar
- Brunet, G., Chechik, M., Easterbrook, S., Nejati, S., Niu, N., and Sabetzadeh, M. 2006. A manifesto for model merging. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Global Integrated Model Management (GaMMa'06). ACM Press, New York, 5--12. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chen, K., Zhao, H., Zhang, W., and Mei, H. 2006a. Identification of crosscutting requirements based on feature dependency analysis. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE'06). 300--303. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chen, K., Zhao, H., Zhang, W., and Mei, H. 2006b. Identification of crosscutting requirements based on feature dependency analysis. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE'06). IEEE Computer Society, 300--303. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chen, L. and Babar, M. A. 2009. A survey of scalability aspects of variability modeling approaches. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Scalable Modeling Techniques for Software Product Lines (SCALE'09). 119--126.Google Scholar
- Chen, L., Babar, M. A., and Ali, N. 2009. Variability management in software product lines: A systematic review. In Proceedings of the 13th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC'09). 81--90. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cho, H., Lee, K., and Kang, K. C. 2008. Feature relation and dependency management: An aspect oriented approach. In Proceedings of the 12th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC'08). 3--11. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Choi, H., Lee, K., Lee, J., and Kang, K. C. 2009. Multiple views of feature models to manage complexity. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Scalable Modeling Techniques for Software Product Lines (SCALE'09). 127--133.Google Scholar
- Classen, A., Heymans, P., and Schobbens, P.-Y. 2008. What's in a feature: A requirements engineering perspective. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE'08). Springer, 16--30. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Classen, A., Heymans, P., Schobbens, P.-Y., Legay, A., and Raskin, J.-F. 2010. Model checking lots of systems: Efficient verification of temporal properties in software product lines. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'10). ACM Press, New York, 335--344. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Classen, A., Hubaux, A., and Heymans, P. 2009. A formal semantics for multi-level staged configuration. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems (VaMoS'09). 51--60.Google Scholar
- Colyer, A., Rashid, A., and Blair, G. 2004. On the separation of concerns in program families. Tech. rep. COMP-001-2004, Lancaster University.Google Scholar
- Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S., and Eisenecker, U. W. 2004. Staged configuration using feature models. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC'04). 266--283.Google Scholar
- Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S., and Eisenecker, U. W. 2005. Staged configuration through specialization and multi-level configuration of feature models. Softw. Process. Improv. Pract. 10, 2, 143--169.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Czarnecki, K. and Pietroszek, K. 2006. Verifying feature-based model templates against well-formedness ocl constraints. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Generative Programming and Component Engineering (GPCE'06). ACM Press, New York, 211--220. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Czarnecki, K., She, S., and Wasowski, A. 2008. Sample spaces and feature models: There and back again. In Proceedings of the 12th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC'08). 22--31. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Deelstra, S., Sinnema, M., and Bosch, J. 2009. Variability assessment in software product families. Inf. Softw. Technol. 51, 1, 195--218. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dordowsky, F. and Hipp, W. 2009. Adopting software product line principles to manage software variants in a complex avionics system. In Proceedings of the 13th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC'09). 265--274. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Easterbrook, S. M. and Nuseibeh, B. A. 1996. Using viewpoints for inconsistency management. Softw. Engin. J. 11, 1.Google Scholar
- Ebraert, P., Vallejos, J., and Vandewoude, Y. 2009. Flexible features: Making feature modules more reusable. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC'09). S. Y. Shin and S. Ossowski, Eds., ACM Press, New York, 1963--1970. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Elsner, C., Lohmann, D., and Schroder-Preikschat, W. 2008. Towards separation of concerns in model transformation workflows. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Early Aspects (EA'08) collocated with the Software Product Line Conference (SPLC'08). 81--88.Google Scholar
- Etxeberria, L. and Mendieta, G. S. 2008. Variability driven quality evaluation in software product lines. In Proceedings of the 12th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC'08). 243--252. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fey, D., Fajta, R., and Boros, A. 2002. Feature modeling: A meta-model to enhance usability and usefulness. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC'02). Springer, 198--216. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gomaa, H. and Shin, M. E. 2004. A multiple-view meta-modeling approach for variability management in software product lines. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Software Reuse: Methods, Techniques and Tools (ICSR'04). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3107, Springer, 274--285.Google Scholar
- Gomaa, H. and Shin, M. E. 2008. Multiple-view modelling and meta-modelling of software product lines. IET Softw. 2, 2, 94--122.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Grunbacher, P., Rabiser, R., Dhungana, D., and Lehofer, M. 2009. Structuring the product line modeling space: Strategies and examples. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Variability Modeling of Software-Intensive Systems (VaMoS'09). 77--82.Google Scholar
- Gunter, C. A., Gunter, E. L., Jackson, M., and Zave, P. 2000. A reference model for requirements and specifications. IEEE Softw. 17, 3, 37--43. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hallsteinsen, S. O., Stav, E., Solberg, A., and Floch, J. 2006. Using product line techniques to build adaptive systems. In Proceedings of the 10th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC'06). 141--150. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hartmann, H. and Trew, T. 2008. Using feature diagrams with context variability to model multiple product lines for software supply chains. In Proceedings of the 12th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC'08). 12--21. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Heidenreich, F., Sanchez, P., Santos, J., Zschaler, S., Alferez, M., Araujo, J., Fuentes, L., Kulesza, U., Moreira, A., and Rashid, A. 2010. Relating feature models to other models of a software product line - A comparative study of feature-mapper and vml*. Theory Aspect-Oriented Softw. Devel. 7, 69--114. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Heymans, P., Kang, K. C., Metzger, A., and Pohl, K., Eds. 2008. ICB research report. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Variability Modeling of Software-Intensive Systems.Google Scholar
- Hubaux, A., Classen, A., and Heymans, P. 2009. Formal modelling of feature configuration workflow. In Proceedings of the 13th International Software Product Lines Conference (SPLC'09). 221--230. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hubaux, A., Classen, A., Mendonça, M., and Heymans, P. 2010a. A preliminary review on the application of feature diagrams in practice. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Variability Modeling of Software-Intensive Systems (VaMoS'10). 53--59.Google Scholar
- Hubaux, A., Heymans, P., and Benavides, D. 2008. Variability modelling challenges from the trenches of an open source product line re-engineering project. In Proceedings of the 12th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC'08). IEEE Computer Society, 55--64. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hubaux, A., Heymans, P., Schobbens, P.-Y., and Deridder, D. 2010b. Towards multi-view feature-based configuration. In Proceedings of the 16th International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ'10). Springer.Google Scholar
- Hubaux, A., Heymans, P., Schobbens, P.-Y., Deridder, D., and Abbasi, E. 2011. Supporting multiple perspectives in feature-based configuration. Softw. Syst. Model. 12, 3, 641--663. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jackson, M. 1995. Software Requirements and Specifications: A Lexicon of Practice, Principles and Prejudices. ACM Press, New York. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jensen, P. 2007. Experiences with product line development of multi-discipline analysis software at overwatch textron systems. In Proceedings of the 11th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC'07). 35--43. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kang, K., Cohen, S., Hess, J., Novak, W., and Peterson, S. 1990. Feature-oriented domain analysis (foda) feasibility study. Tech. rep. CMU/SEI-90-TR-21, SEI, Carnegie Mellon University. November.Google Scholar
- Kang, K. C., Donohoe, P., Koh, E., Lee, J., and Lee, K. 2002. Using a marketing and product plan as a key driver for product line asset development. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC'02). 366--382. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kang, K. C., Kim, S., Lee, J., Kim, K., Shin, E., and Huh, M. 1998. Form: A feature-oriented reuse method with domain-specific reference architectures. Ann. Softw. Engin. 5, 143--168. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kircher, M., Schwanninger, C., and Groher, I. 2006. Transitioning to a software product family approach - Challenges and best practices. In Proceedings of the 10th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC'06). 163--171. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kitchenham, B. A. 2004. Procedures for undertaking systematic reviews. Tech. rep. 0400011T.1, Computer Science Department, Keele University (TR/SE-0401) and National ICT Australia Ltd.Google Scholar
- Lee, J., Kang, K. C., and Kim, S. 2004. A feature-based approach to product line production planning. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC'04). 183--196.Google Scholar
- Lee, K., Botterweck, G., and Thiel, S. 2009. Aspectual separation of feature dependencies for flexible feature composition. In Proceedings of the 33rd IEEE International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC'09). S. I. Ahamed, E. Bertino, C. K. Chang, V. Getov, L. Liu, H. Ming, and R. Subramanyan, Eds., IEEE Computer Society, 45--52. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lee, K. and Kang, K. C. 2004. Feature dependency analysis for product line component design. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Software Reuse: Methods, Techniques and Tools (ICSR'04). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3107, Springer, 69--85.Google Scholar
- Lee, K., Kang, K. C., Kim, M., and Park, S. 2006. Combining feature-oriented analysis and aspectoriented programming for product line asset development. In Proceedings of the 10th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC'06). 103--112. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lee, K., Kang, K. C., and Lee, J. 2002. Concepts and guidelines of feature modeling for product line software engineering. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Software Reuse. Springer, 62--77. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Loughran, N. and Rashid, A. 2004. Framed aspects: Supporting variability and configurability for aop. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Software Reuse: Methods, Techniques and Tools (ICSR'04). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3107, Springer, 127--140.Google Scholar
- Lutz, R. R. 2008. Enabling verifiable conformance for product lines. In Proceedings of the 12th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC'08). 35--44. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mannion, M., Savolainen, J., and Asikainen, T. 2009. Viewpoint-oriented variability modeling. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual IEEE International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC'09). 67--72. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mendonça, M., Cowan, D. D., Malyk, W., and de Oliveira, T. C. 2008. Collaborative product configuration: Formalization and efficient algorithms for dependency analysis. J. Softw. 3, 2, 69--82.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Metzger, A., Heymans, P., Pohl, K., Schobbens, P.-Y., and Saval, G. 2007. Disambiguating the documentation of variability in software product lines: A separation of concerns, formalization and automated analysis. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE'07). 243--253.Google Scholar
- Moreira, A., Rashid, A., and Araujo, J. 2005. Multi-dimensional separation of concerns in requirements engineering. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE'05). 285--296. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Noda, N. and Kishi, T. 2008. Aspect-oriented modeling for variability management. In Proceedings of the 12th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC'08). 213--222. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pohl, K., Bockle, G., and van der Linden, F. J. 2005. Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles and Techniques. Springer. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Reiser, M.-O. and Weber, M. 2006. Managing highly complex product families with multi-level feature trees. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE'06). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, 146--155. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Reiser, M.-O. and Weber, M. 2007. Multi-level feature trees. Requir. Engin. 12, 2, 57--75. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Saleh, M. and Gomaa, H. 2005a. Separation of concerns in software product line engineering. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Modeling and Analysis of Concerns in Software (WACS'05). ACM Press, New York, 1--5. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Saleh, M. and Gomaa, H. 2005b. Separation of concerns in software product line engineering. ACM SIGSOFT Softw. Engin. Not. 30, 4, 1--5. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Savolainen, J. and Kuusela, J. 2001. Consistency management of product line requirements. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE'01). 40--47. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sca. 2009. Workshop on Scalable Modeling Techniques for Software Product Lines (SCALE'09) held at the 13th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC'09).Google Scholar
- Schmid, K. and Eichelberger, H. 2008. Model-based implementation of meta-variability constructs: A case study using aspects. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Variability Modeling of Software-Intensive Systems. 63--71.Google Scholar
- Schobbens, P.-Y., Heymans, P., and Trigaux, J.-C. 2006. Feature diagrams: A survey and a formal semantics. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE'06). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, 136--145. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Schobbens, P.-Y., Heymans, P., Trigaux, J.-C., and Bontemps, Y. 2007. Generic semantics of feature diagrams. Comput. Netw. 51, 2, 456--479. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Shull, F., Singer, J., and Sjøberg, D. I. K. 2007. Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering. Springer. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Spanoudakis, G. and Zisman, A. 2001. Inconsistency management in software engineering: Survey and open research issues. In Handbook of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, S. K. Chang, Ed., World Scientific Publishing, 329--380.Google Scholar
- Steger, M., Tischer, C., Boss, B., Muller, A., Pertler, O., Stolz, W., and Ferber, S. 2004. Introducing pla at bosch gasoline systems: Experiences and practices. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC'04). 34--50.Google Scholar
- Svahnberg, M., van Gurp, J., and Bosch, J. 2005. A taxonomy of variability realization techniques. Softw. Pract. Exper. 35, 8, 705--754. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tarr, P. L., Ossher, H., Harrison, W. H., and Jr., S. M. S. 1999. N degrees of separation: Multi-dimensional separation of concerns. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'99). 107--119. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Thompson, J. M. and Heimdahl, M. P. E. 2003. Structuring product family requirements for ndimensional and hierarchical product lines. Requir. Engin. 8, 1, 42--54.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tun, T. T., Boucher, Q., Classen, A., Hubaux, A., and Heymans, P. 2009. Relating requirements and feature configurations: A systematic approach. In Proceedings of the 13th International Software Product Lines Conference (SPLC'09). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ubayashi, N. and Nakajima, S. 2007. Context-aware feature-oriented modeling with an aspect extension of vdm. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC'07). Y. Cho, R. L. Wainwright, H. Haddad, S. Y. Shin, and Y. W. Koo, Eds., ACM Press, New York, 1269--1274. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Uchitel, S. and Chechik, M. 2004. Merging partial behavioural models. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM/SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE'04). 43--52. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Volter, M. and Groher, I. 2007. Product line implementation using aspect-oriented and model-driven software development. In Proceedings of the 11th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC'07). IEEE Computer Society, 233--242. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wenzel, S., Berger, T., and Riechert, T. 2009. How to configure a configuration management system - An approach based on feature modeling. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Model-Driven Approaches in Software Product Line Engineering (MAPLE'09). 99--105.Google Scholar
- White, J., Benavides, D., Dougherty, B., and Schmidt, D. C. 2009. Automated reasoning for multistep software product-line configuration problems. In Proceedings of the 13th International Software Product Lines Conference (SPLC'09). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Zave, P. and Jackson, M. 1997. Four dark corners of requirements engineering. ACM Trans. Softw. Engin. Methodol. 6, 1, 1--30. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Zhang, H., Jarzabek, S., and Swe, S. M. 2001. Xvcl approach to separating concerns in product family assets. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Generative and Component-Based Software Engineering (GCSE'01). J. Bosch, Ed., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2186, Springer, 36--47. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ziadi, T., Helouet, L., and Jezequel, J.-M. 2004. Towards a uml profile for software product lines. In Proceedings of the 5th International on Software Product-Family Engineering. F. van der Linden, Ed., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3014, Springer, 129--139.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Separation of concerns in feature diagram languages: A systematic survey
Recommendations
Preserving the separation of concerns while composing aspects on shared joinpoints
OOPSLA '09: Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGPLAN conference companion on Object oriented programming systems languages and applicationsAspect-oriented programming (AOP) is a programming paradigm which makes possible the separation of crosscutting concerns in different modules (the aspects). AOP is known to have issues when aspects are composed in a base program. Several approaches have ...
Recovering traceability links between feature models and source code of product variants
VARY '12: Proceedings of the VARiability for You Workshop: Variability Modeling Made Useful for EveryoneUsually software product variants, developed by clone-and-own approach, form often a starting point for building Software Product Line (SPL). To migrate software products that deemed similar into a product line, it is essential to trace variability ...
Preserving the separation of concerns while composing aspects on shared joinpoints
OOPSLA '09: Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGPLAN conference companion on Object oriented programming systems languages and applicationsAspect-oriented programming (AOP) is a programming paradigm which makes possible the separation of crosscutting concerns in different modules (the aspects). AOP is known to have issues when aspects are composed in a base program. Several approaches have ...
Comments