general and for component based software systems. That is at requirements level. Other group of research papers talk about Aspect based modelling and design and in the effort they have developed a new approach. A wide literature is there which makes an effort towards comparing the standard object oriented paradigm with Aspect-oriented paradigm . Lot of work is also available in which they justify the lacuna present in the current UML building block and prove that current form of UML is not appropriate for performing Aspect-OrientedModelling and thus they suggest an extension to the existing UML notations for modeling the aspect in analysis and design phase. Many authors have worked upon applying and adapting Aspect-oriented paradigm for a particular application domain. In  the concept of Aspect-Oriented is applied to Web application. Also in ,, the use of Aspect-Oriented programming is done for Embedded system. Also in good number of papers current approaches in the use of UML diagrams to support aspect-oriented analysis and design are discussed and evaluated in terms of their ability to support the specification, change, maintenance, testing and reuse of aspects during requirements elicitation and throughout the software engineering life cycle. An approach based on UML activity diagrams is proposed, discussed and evaluated in , whereas the work presented in  has extended UML class diagram. The authors have used very generic pointcut and advice language which in turn has facilitated to model with aspects. As a result of particular approach, better separation of concerns as well as more redundancy reduction in UML class diagrams has been obtained thus making them more readable and understandable and in turn maintainable. In  Sequence Diagram describes the Aspectual Sequence Model based on the Unified Modeling Language (UML) to identify the crosscutting concerns in the framework of Model Driven Architecture (MDA). An approach on modeling traversing features in concurrent software system was presented, which is based on aspect-oriented techniques and statecharts of unified modeling language is described in . A use case driven approach is explained in  to explain the interaction analysis in Aspect-Oriented models. While reviewing this vast amount of literature, one can easily deduces that, most research on AOP modeling with UML is based on software forward engineering. Due to the fact modelling of aspects is done in early stage of software development process.
ABSTRACT : REST, a communication protocol is used for communicating via APIs. It is widely used today for intercommunication among the services and the users. However, it does have the constraint of constructing servers to be stateless. Stateless servers are restricted from storing any information about the clients. Hence profiling such resources becomes a serious issue, as session is not retained. AOP enables implementing cross cutting concerns to be applied to applications without disturbing their business logic. This paper aims to overcome this challenge of resources profiling using REST and AOP concepts. It presents a plug and play approach for profiling REST resources using AspectOriented Programming.
2.2 Introduction to AspectOrientedModelling Engineers ought to be mindful of, and comprehend the product displaying or structural planning before gazing actualizing AOP. AOM (AspectOriented Modeling) is a way to deal with produce a sensible viewpoint arranged structural model. Early utilization of AOM being developed stage will lessen the product advancement danger of contentions and undesirable conduct rising amid usage. The cross cutting component is normal in AOP and AOM, however the distinction is between the stratagems versus source code, it could rise contrast method in speaking to it. Case in point, the code can speak to in single usefulness, while a model can speak to the framework with distinctive graph sees. Another contrast in the middle of AOP and AOM in code is viewpoint weaving is basically concerned with embeddings usefulness at system execution. AOM module comprises of real segments: essential model, angle model and arrangement model Fig.1 beneath demonstrates
It appears that there may be some synergy between aspectoriented development and agile methods, since late arising requirements changes can be cross cutting concerns. Handling such changed requirements may prove easier if these concerns are implemented using aspects. A number of authors have previously suggested that AOP and agile methods are not incompatible. Many of these take a somewhat general approach, suggesting for example that required system behaviours (i.e. aspects) are identified in cooperation with stakeholders and that aspects may assist in the process of coping with changing requirements . Indeed, the issue of changing requirements is important, since AOP may provide the ideal solution to non-functional requirements that arise late in an agile project lifecycle, as they surely will with agile’s ‘Embrace Change’ philosophy . Others have pointed to the integration of early aspects with an evolutionary model and refactoring of requirements, working with a code centric iterative domain model . However, previous work on the relationship between these two approaches to software development has been limited and tends not to be comprehensive. For example, late arising requirements may be implemented using an aspect layer over a non-aspect core model. This may be a pragmatic solution but does not address a possible deeper relationship between AOSD and agile methods.
An aspect serves as the main encapsulating unit that eventually contains an arbitrary number of classes and interfaces, their contents, and the relationships among them. Moreover, it may also define one or several of the elements as mandatory instantiation parameters while specifying their respective types. These global properties of aspect can be implemented as shown in Lines 1-14 in Figure 1. To enhance reusability and to respect the principles of modular design, we have made extensive use of XML schema complex types in combination with XML elements. Thus, for example, a class is represented by an element of complex type ClassType, which is an extension of the generic type StructType, representing the core features of a structure shared by classes and interfaces. Classes, interfaces and their corresponding details (fields, functions, parameters, return types etc.) are implemented within the structural view of the schema representation (defined as StructuralView element, see, e.g., Line 16-35 in Figure 1). As described in Table 1, the field element defines a number of attributes, which allow automatic generation of some methods with predefined semantics, e.g., if get and set attributes are set to true for a particular field, then getter and setter methods will be generated for that field without the need of any further information.
The program encourages student interac- tion via a workshop, implemented in the pro- gram through a series of research sessions. In these, we invite all summer school attendees to present their ongoing work. Summer school lecturers provide feedback. This demonstrates perfectly how the curriculum is nonexclusive to additional activities that can reinforce the concepts taught. Also, there’s a focus on AOSD’s key application contexts, particularly on middleware and system software that sup- ports aspect orientation and on frameworks that model a key application development con- cern (such as security). This choice is moti- vated by the fact that both subdomains form a broad area of PhD research topics.
We have looked for software engineering methods to develop and maintain service-based applications which can be implemented in developing countries. This context introduces additional constraints in our searching, such as the methods have to produce fast deliveries, maintain development cost low, and consider from the beginning aspects related to long term sustainability of the solutions. These issues seem to suggest the adoption of light weight methods, such as Agile Methods (AM), more convenient. However, none of the AMs examined includes the service-oriented computing characteristics (see Table 2.12). These characteristics are included by SOMs, but they are not as good as AMs in the dimensions
This section describes the relationship between the traditional approaches for traditional software development and proposed testing approaches of aspectoriented software. However, an aspect-oriented program (written in AspectJ) with classes, methods, packages and interfaces is similar to object-oriented program (written in Java). But, aspect weaving programs can affect the types of faults commonly found in traditional programming (i.e. object oriented programs and procedural programs).Clearly, AOPs contain some different faults. Therefore, fault handling mechanism could be different from traditional programming but somewhat similar. Therefore, according to Amman et.al.,four types of models 1)Graph based 2)Code based 3) Domain Reduction and 4) Syntactic Structure models have been used to develop the sequential software. Moreover, test methods are also categorized into four types based on the model on which software is based on. 5.1 Graph - based coverage
We have presented an approach to compute dynamic slices of feature-oriented programs with aspect-oriented exten- sions. The features required for composition are first se- lected and composed using Algebraic Hierarchical Equa- tions for Application Design (AHEAD) composer. Then, the aspects are weaved into the generated composed Java program using AspectJ composer to produce the resultant AspectJ program. The intermediate dependence based rep- resentation of the program containing Jak code and AspectJ code is constructed and it is called Composite Feature- Aspect Dependence Graph (CFADG). The program is exe- cuted for an input. During execution, the nodes of CFADG are marked and unmarked according to our feature-aspect node marking dynamic slicing (FANMDS) algorithm. We have developed a tool to implement our FANMDS algo- rithm and named it FADST. Our tool FADST computes the dynamic slices and the average slice extraction times for various compositions of features and aspects weaved for various product lines. Currently, our tool is able to han- dle various compositions for few product lines with few aspects captured. Also, current evaluation only uses prim- itive feature-oriented programs. In future, we will extend our tool to handle more number of product lines with more number of compositions.
In this paper, we study the task of automatically generating aspect-oriented summary from multiple documents. We proposed an event-aspect model that can automatically cluster sentences into aspect- s. We then use an extension of the LexRank algo- rithm to rank sentences. We took advantage of the output generated by the event-aspect model to mod- ify jumping probabilities so as to favor visiting rep- resentative sentence. We also proposed dependen- cy tree compression algorithm to prune sentence for improving linguistic quality of the summaries. Fi- nally we use Integer Linear Programming Frame- work to select aspect relevant sentences. We con- ducted quantitative evaluation using standard test data sets. We found that our method gave overal- l better ROUGE scores than four baseline methods, and the new sentence clustering and compression al- gorithm are robust.
(SME). In this context, a given enterprise is considered to be competitive or not depending on its ability to interoperate with other enterprises. The INTEROP Network of Excellence project is one of the main projects that have been set up to deal with Enterprise Modelling and the Interoperability issue. This project, which is backed by the European Commission, aims to create the conditions for innovative and competitive research in the field of Interoperability for Enterprise Applications and Software. The INTEROP Project has three main research domains: the first deals with the subject of Enterprise Modelling in order to define interoperability requirements. The second research domain, called Architecture and Platforms, aims to provide solutions to the question of how to implement frameworks. The third domain, named Ontology, aims to identify interoperability semantics within the enterprise. The subject of our research concerns the domains and objectives of the Enterprise Modeling Most of our work are involved the search for solutions to the issue of achieving Interoperability and Enterprise Modelling. The aims are to analyse and propose solutions for achieving Model Driven interoperability. It is also involved in another subject, which intends to facilitate interoperable Enterprise Software Applications (ESA) using the model-driven approach. Finally, our project aims for the future is to provide a complete model of interoperability achievement by using the findings of its work and all the results obtained in other existing solutions.
Here we have a concrete aspect called “ConcreteAspect” that extends the “MyAbstract_Aspect” aspect. The “Concrete Aspect” has definitions for its abstract method and abstract. In this aspect, we have defined the getVal() pointcut which will read the value of “i”. Many such sub-aspects can be created. The outcome of this is that the code that is present in the base aspect is common and shared by the sub-aspects. Therefore the sub-aspects can now have the code that is specific for a particular application. We have also implemented the abstract method getI()
In addition, we intended to evaluate our approach with different types of anomaly, for example, real-time constraints inheritance anomaly. Recently, there have been some attempts in defining real-time object-oriented languages. Similar to concurrent object-oriented languages, real-time object- oriented languages may suffer from the real-time constraints inheritance anomaly. In contrast to concurrent object-oriented languages, there has been almost no study on the origins of the real-time constraint inheritance anomaly problem. Needless to say, the combined analysis of concurrent and real-time constraint inheritance anomalies has not been addressed, although most real-time systems are concurrent. Finally, we evaluated our approach with C++, C#, VB.NET, and J# and we are keen to evaluate our approach with other .NET languages.
Concerns are the reason for organising software into modules that are understandable and manageable. Many different kinds of concerns can be relevant to different developers in different roles, at different stages of the software lifecycle. Data and classes can be concerns, as can features such as persistence and aspects such concurrency control. In MDSOC terminology, a kind of concern is referred to as a dimension of concern. Hence, separation of concerns involves decomposition of software according to one or more dimensions of concern. Separation along one dimension of concern may promote some goals whilst impeding others. It is difficult to discover the relevant set of concerns to separate as they are context sensitive and vary over time. This means that any set of criterion for decomposition and integration will be appropriate for some set of requirements but not for all. Additionally, multiple dimensions of concern may be relevant simultaneously, and they may overlap and interact, as features and classes do. Thus, modularisation according to different dimensions of concern is needed for different purposes: sometimes by class, sometimes by feature, sometimes by aspect or other criterion. These considerations imply that developers must be able identify, encapsulate, modularise and manipulate multiple dimensions of concern simultaneously, and to introduce new concerns and dimensions at any point during the software lifecycle without suffering the effects of invasive modification and rearchitecure. As mentioned earlier, modern languages suffer from a problem termed the "tyranny of the dominant decomposition"  - they permit separation and encapsulation of only one kind of concern at a time. It is therefore impossible to obtain the benefits of different decomposition dimensions throughout the software lifecycle. Changing the unit of modularisation during the evolution of a system can have disastrous effects, some languages don't even let you change your dominant decomposition e.g. you must use classes in Object-Oriented programming.
For each new aspect we introduced we examined relevant source code call method calls, constructors, and blocks of code. Once an aspect was introduced, its functionality and purpose were reviewed and adjustments made to further refine how it interacted with and contributed to the existing classes, as well as adjusting the classes in the library that the newly created aspect was now advising. An aspect that starts off interposing a single class can be used to interpose multiple classes. This process was repeated for each crosscutting concern that was identified. Static and dynamic tests were performed to guarantee that software behaviour was preserved, that is to ensure that for the same set of input values, the resulting set of outputs were the same before and after refactoring. Stronger notions of behaviour preservation are needed for domains such as real-time and embedded systems where performance and other properties such as safety could be affected. This was not an issue with GEF.
Let me try to explain to you, what to my taste is characteristic for all intelligent thinking. It is, that one is willing to study in depth an aspect of one’s subject matter in isolation for the sake of its own consistency, all the time knowing that one is occupying oneself only with one of the aspects. We know that a program must be correct and we can study it from that viewpoint only; we also know that it should be efficient and we can study its efficiency on another day, so to speak. In another mood we may ask ourselves whether, and if so: why, the program is desirable. But nothing is gained –on the contrary!– by tackling these various aspects simultaneously. It is what I sometimes have called ‘the separation of concerns’, which, even if not perfectly possible, is yet the only available technique for effective ordering of one’s thoughts, that I know of. This is what I mean by focussing one’s attention upon some aspect: it does not mean ignoring the other aspects, it is just doing justice to the fact that from this aspect’s point of view, the other is irrelevant. It is being one- and multiple-track minded simultaneously.
grams that behave differently. We need to know the weaving order to be able to predict the result. If the weaving order is undetermined, as in the absence of a precedence declaration, the woven program will at the least be not portable (since different compilers can choose different weaving orders). Moreover, program- mers will not be informed about the order the compiler chooses. In another perspective, different pieces of advice can appear within aspects in a certain textual order that their precedence follows certain predetermined rules. However these rules lead to the problems of circularity and unable to express all weaving orders. In such cases, programmers must manually modify the order the advice is listed in the program text to ensure the resulting weav- ing order eliminates circularity, and produce a semanti- cally appropriate weaving for the task at hand which is a non-trivial and lengthy process. However, if the pro- grammers forget to do that or if it is not obvious to find the precedence relation due to a big number of aspects or the complexity of their properties then the result can be disastrous. Semantic mutation testing can be used to ex- plore the impact of undeclared precedence of pieces of advice and aspects, and thus assists in determining of portability of the program. Semantic mutation operator would rearrange the order of the precedence. If the muta- tion operator generates an equivalent mutant then the behaviour of the program of the tested program is not affected by portability issues. The above scenario on as- pect composition only involves precedence. There are other problems that can occur in aspect composition as mentioned in [59-63]. These problems provide opportu- nity for applying semantic mutation testing.
In AOP, the different aspects of a systems behavior are each programmed in their most natural form, and then these separate programs are woven together to produce executable code. Our work on AOP is being carried out in the context of both general-purpose and domain specific languages, we believe that it has contributions to make to both areas. The goal of Aspect-Oriented Programming (AOP) is to make it possible to deal with crosscutting aspects of a systems behavior as separately as possible. We want to allow programmers to first express each of a system‟s aspects of concern in a separate and natural form, and then automatically combine those separate descriptions into a final executable form using a tool called an Aspect Weaver or Aspectj.
When identifying aspects early in the lifecycle, devel- opers can currently apply three approaches. The common approach for aspect-identiﬁcation is to look for the objects in a system ﬁrst, and then attempt to spot the tangled and scattered behaviour as it becomes evident. This is an ad- hoc approach that is likely to necessitate re-design as as- pects are discovered late in the design process. Alterna- tively, before the design process starts, developers might scan requirements for mentions of typical aspect-style be- haviour, such as logging, tracing, or debugging functional- ity. This only covers a narrow range of potential aspects; it does not help with identifying crosscutting behaviour that does not fall into these categories, or that might be domain speciﬁc. To address this need, a developer might start by applying an aspect-oriented requirements engineering tech- nology, and target non-functional requirements as an initial set of aspects [13, 11, 16]. However, there are likely to be many functional requirements in the system that probably break down into complicated and interrelated behaviours. Would any of those be aspects? Where would they crosscut the system?