Improving a Modular Verification Technique for Aspect Oriented Programming

As aspect oriented software becomes more popular, there will be more demand for a method of verifying the correctness of the programs. This paper tries to address the verification issue by improving a modular verification technique proposed by Krisnamuhrti et al. The technique has the problem that it can not handle every aspect, which may result in a false awnser. By checking the type of the aspect in advance we can prevent this behavior. The proposed solution also improves some other issues regarding the model-checker

Static and Dynamic Detection of Behavioral Conflicts Between Aspects

Aspects have been successfully promoted as a means to improve the modularization of software in the presence of crosscutting concerns. The so-called aspect interference problem is considered to be one of the remaining challenges of aspect-oriented software development: aspects may interfere with the behavior of the base code or other aspects. Especially interference between aspects is difficult to prevent, as this may be caused solely by the composition of aspects that behave correctly in isolation. A typical situation where this may occur is when multiple advices are applied at a shared, join point.\ud In [1] we explained the problem of behavioral conflicts between aspects at shared join points. We presented an approach for the detection of behavioral conflicts. This approach is based on a novel abstraction model for representing the behavior of advice. This model allows the expression of both primitive and complex behavior in a simple manner. This supports automatic conflict detection. The presented approach employs a set of conflict detection rules, which can be used to detect generic, domain specific and application specific conflicts. The approach is implemented in Compose*, which is an implementation of Composition Filters. This application shows that a declarative advice language can be exploited for aiding automated conflict detection.\ud This paper discusses the need for a runtime extension to the described static approach. It also presents a possible implementation approach of such an extension in Compose*. This allows us to reason efficiently about the behavior of aspects. It also enables us to detect these conflicts with minimal overhead at runtime

Enforcing Behavioral Constraints in Evolving Aspect-Oriented Programs

Reasoning, specification, and verification of Aspect-Oriented (AO) programs presents unique challenges especially as such programs evolve over time. Components, base-code and aspects alike, may be easily added, removed, interchanged, or presently unavailable at unpredictable frequencies. Consequently, modular reasoning of such programs is highly attractive as it enables tractable evolution, otherwise necessitating that the entire program be reexamined each time a component is changed. It is well known, however, that modular reasoning about AO programs is difficult. In this paper, we present our ongoing work in constructing a rely-guarantee style reasoning system for the Aspect-Oriented Programming (AOP) paradigm, adopting a trace-based approach to deal with the plug-n-play nature inherent to these programs, thus easing AOP evolution

Towards safer composition

Determining whether a set of features can be composed, or safe composition, is a hard problem in software product line engineering because the number of feature combinations can be exponential. We argue that synergies between current approaches to safe composition should be exploited and propose a combined approach. At the heart of our proposal is a merge operation that creates a behavioural description for the entire product family from a feature diagram and descriptions of individual feature behaviour. As a result, we intend to verify more efficiently safe composition for an exponential number of feature combinations

An Atypical Survey of Typical-Case Heuristic Algorithms

Heuristic approaches often do so well that they seem to pretty much always give the right answer. How close can heuristic algorithms get to always giving the right answer, without inducing seismic complexity-theoretic consequences? This article first discusses how a series of results by Berman, Buhrman, Hartmanis, Homer, Longpr\'{e}, Ogiwara, Sch\"{o}ening, and Watanabe, from the early 1970s through the early 1990s, explicitly or implicitly limited how well heuristic algorithms can do on NP-hard problems. In particular, many desirable levels of heuristic success cannot be obtained unless severe, highly unlikely complexity class collapses occur. Second, we survey work initiated by Goldreich and Wigderson, who showed how under plausible assumptions deterministic heuristics for randomized computation can achieve a very high frequency of correctness. Finally, we consider formal ways in which theory can help explain the effectiveness of heuristics that solve NP-hard problems in practice.Comment: This article is currently scheduled to appear in the December 2012 issue of SIGACT New