Aspect-oriented programming: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:10, 1 November 2016

Revision as of 02:08, 28 November 2016

Line 217:

Indeed, the pointcut may depend on runtime condition and thus not be statically deterministic. This can be mitigated but not solved by static analysis and IDE support showing which advices ''potentially'' match.

General criticisms are that AOP purports to improve "both modularity and the structure of code", but some counter that it instead undermines these goals and impedes "independent development and understandability of programs".<ref name="steimann">{{Cite journal | doi = 10.1145/1167515.1167514| title = The paradoxical success of aspect-oriented programming| journal = ACM SIGPLAN Notices| volume = 41| issue = 10| pages = 481| year = 2006| last1 = Steimann | first1 = F. }}, ([http://people.dsv.su.se/~johano/ioor/succ_aop.pdf slides],[http://www.eecs.ucf.edu/~leavens/modular-aop/Discussion.pdf slides 2], [http://www.oopsla.org/2006/submission/essays/the_paradoxical_success_of_aspect-oriented_programming.html abstract]), Friedrich Steimann, Gary T. Leavens, [[OOPSLA]] 2006</ref> Specifically, quantification by pointcuts breaks modularity: "one must, in general, have whole-program knowledge to reason about the dynamic execution of an aspect-oriented program."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.eecs.ucf.edu/~leavens/modular-aop/|title=More Modular Reasoning for Aspect-Oriented Programs|publisher=|accessdate=11 August 2015}}</ref> Further, while its goals (modularizing cross-cutting concerns) are well-understood, its actual definition is unclear and not clearly distinguished from other well-established techniques.<ref name="steimann"/> Cross-cutting concerns potentially cross-cut each other, requiring some resolution mechanism, such as ordering.<ref name="steimann"/> Indeed, aspects can apply to themselves, leading to problems such as the [[liar paradox]].<ref>[http://corewww.acfernuni-hagen.ukde/downloadps/pdfpubs/11558418FOAL2006.pdf AOP and the Antinomy of the Liar]</ref>

Technical criticisms include that the quantification of pointcuts (defining where advices are executed) is "extremely sensitive to changes in the program", which is known as the ''fragile pointcut problem''.<ref name="steimann"/> The problems with pointcuts are deemed intractable: if one replaces the quantification of pointcuts with explicit annotations, one obtains attribute-oriented programming instead, which is simply an explicit subroutine call and suffers the identical problem of scattering that AOP was designed to solve.<ref name="steimann"/>