Relationship To Aspect-oriented Programming
The introduction of aspect-oriented programming in 1997, raised questions about its relationship to subject-oriented programming, and about the difference between subjects and aspects. These questions were unanswered for some time, but were addressed in the patent on Aspect-oriented programming filed in 1999 in which two points emerge as characteristic differences from earlier art:
- the aspect program comprises both a) a cross-cut that comprises a point in the execution where cross-cutting behavior is to be included; and b) a cross-cut action comprising a piece of implementation associated with the cross-cut, the piece of implementation comprising computer readable program code that implements the cross-cutting behavior.
- the aspect transparently forces the cross-cutting behavior on object classes and other software entities
In the subject-oriented view, the cross-cut may be placed separately from the aspect (subject) and the behavior is not forced by the aspect, but governed by rules of composition. Hindsight makes it also possible to distinguish aspect-oriented programming by its introduction and exploitation of the concept of a query-like pointcut to externally impose the join-points used by aspects in general ways.
In the presentation of subject-oriented programming, the join-points were deliberately restricted to field access and method call on the grounds that those were the points at which well-designed frameworks were designed to admit functional extension. The use of externally imposed pointcuts is an important linguistic capability, but remains one of the most controversial features of aspect-oriented programming.
Read more about this topic: Subject-oriented Programming
Famous quotes containing the words relationship to, relationship and/or programming:
“Film music should have the same relationship to the film drama that somebody’s piano playing in my living room has to the book I am reading.”
—Igor Stravinsky (1882–1971)
“It is possible to make friends with our children—but probably not while they are children.... Friendship is a relationship of mutual dependence-interdependence. A family is a relationship in which some of the participants are dependent on others. It is the job of parents to provide for their children. It is not appropriate for adults to enter into parenthood recognizing they have made a decision to accept dependents and then try to pretend that their children are not dependent on them.”
—Donald C. Medeiros (20th century)
“If there is a price to pay for the privilege of spending the early years of child rearing in the driver’s seat, it is our reluctance, our inability, to tolerate being demoted to the backseat. Spurred by our success in programming our children during the preschool years, we may find it difficult to forgo in later states the level of control that once afforded us so much satisfaction.”
—Melinda M. Marshall (20th century)