Content deleted Content added
FrackFrick (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 33:
SOP is better at isolation (than the comparative implementation of AP):
<i>A subject has an affinity to an adaptive program. While a subject deals with class fragments, an adaptive program deals with class-valued variables which are mapped later onto class fragments automatically generating the necessary glue code. While a subject has to deal with all involved class fragments explicitly, an adaptive program only talks about the important class-valued variables. After the mapping to classes, code will be generated automatically for the less important classes based on the information in the traversal strategies and the class graph.</i>
===Another answer===
Here's another take on the contrast between SOP and AOP (from http://www.cs.umd.edu/class/spring2003/cmsc838p/Design/aop.pdf):
8.4 Subjective Programming
A natural question to ask is whether subjective programming [5] is AOP or vice versa. We believe that AOP and subjective programming are different in important ways. Analogously to the way object-oriented programming supports automatic selection among methods for the same message from different classes, subjective programming supports automatic combination of methods for a given message from different subjects. In both cases, the methods involved are components in the AOP sense, since they can be well localized in a generalized procedure. It is even possible to program in either an object oriented style or a subjective style on top of an ordinary procedural language, without significant tangling. The same is not true of AOP. Thus, while the aspects of AOP tend to be about properties that affect the performance or semantics of components, the subjects of subjective programming tend to be additional features added onto other subjects. We believe that subjective programming is complementary to, and compatible with, AOP.
| |||