RE: [aspectj-users] UML for AspectJ

["Kenworthy, Edward (EDS)" <Edward.Kenworthy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think there are three ways you could deal with this: One is to say that
you are going to use Aspects for low-level "implementation" eg logging. Two
you could implicitly model it by including as part of one or more design
patterns and modelling those design patterns using UML (stereotypes for eg)
or thirdly you could try and model them explicitly. Personally I would go
with one or both of the first two options - and forget the third one.

Edward

-----Original Message-----
From: Russell Miles [mailto:russellmiles@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 29 January 2004 22:17
To: aspectj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [aspectj-users] UML for AspectJ


Hi everyone,

I've talked to a couple of people about this because this is one area 
where my company is keen to see proof that aspects can indeed be 
modeled.

One of the suggested mechanisms is to look carefully at Use Cases, in 
particular towards their realizations. Admittedly the logical model 
calls for some new stereotypes and a perspective change on the 
developers part but in effect aspects can be modeled as forms of 
classes within this context. It's at the Use Case realization level 
that the distinction can be made between a cross-cutting approach or a 
more traditional OO solution. Admittedly I haven't found anything 
formal to this effect but this is what has seemed to work reasonably 
well for me.

Does anyone else out there have anything more formal? I do use the AJDT 
browser too but that is not much use when you are in the early days of 
design development and no actual code is in existence so UML still 
seems to fit the bill at that point.

Just my two pence :)

Russ Miles

On 29 Jan 2004, at 21:54, Eric Bodden wrote:

> aspectj-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx <> wrote:
>
>> Hello, I am very new to AspectJ and AOP in general.  I am
>> wondering if there is any sort of UML specification for AOP.
>> Specifically, can an AO design fit with a normal OO class
>> design?  My understanding of AOP is that an aspect is
>> actually a class(or maybe that a class can hold multiple aspects).
>> Any ideas?
> Usually UML does not fit quite well because aspects are designed to
> _crosscut_ thorugh classes. You could see them as some kind of filter 
> lying
> over your whole class hierarchy. Thus UML does not fit very well I'd 
> say.
> The only useful visualization I know is the one provided by the Aspect
> Browser or AJDT tools respectively.
>
> HTH,
> Eric
>
> -- 
> Eric Bodden
> RWTH Aachen University
> ICQ UIN: 12656220
> Website: http://www.bodden.de
> PGP key: http://www.bodden.de/pub_key.asc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aspectj-dev mailing list
> aspectj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-dev

_______________________________________________
aspectj-users mailing list
aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users