Seiichi Komiya

Bio: Seiichi Komiya is an academic researcher from Shibaura Institute of Technology. The author has contributed to research in topics: Software development & Software project management. The author has an hindex of 6, co-authored 46 publications receiving 215 citations.

Association aspects

Abstract: We propose a linguistic mechanism for AspectJ-like languages that concisely associates aspect instances to object groups. The mechanism, which supports association aspects, extends the per-object aspects in AspectJ by allowing an aspect instance to be associated to a group of objects, and by providing a new pointcut primitive to specify aspect instances as execution contexts of advice. With association aspects, we can straightforwardly implement crosscutting concerns that have stateful behavior related to a particular group of objects. The new pointcut primitive can more flexibly specify aspect instances when compared against previous implicit mechanisms. The comparison of execution times between the programs with association aspects and the ones with regular AspectJ aspects revealed that the association aspects exhibited almost equivalent for the medium-sized configurations.

A Unit Testing Framework for Aspects without Weaving

Abstract: Unit testing of aspects can verify aspects implementations of aspects against their specification. Current technique for unit testing of aspects requires to weave the aspect definition into a target program, which thus makes it difficult to write comprehensive test cases and to avoid interference from other aspects. In this paper, we propose a framework for unit testing aspects without weaving. Our framework generates testing methods from an aspect definition so that test cases can directly verify properties of aspects such as the advice behavior and pointcut matching.

Design and implementation of an aspect instantiation mechanism

Abstract: This paper describes the design and implementation of association aspects, which are a linguistic mechanism for the AspectJ language that concisely associates aspect instances to object groups by extending the per-object aspects in AspectJ. This mechanism allows an aspect instance to be associated to a group of objects, and by providing a new pointcut primitive to specify aspect instances as execution context of advice. With association aspects, we can straightforwardly implement crosscutting concerns that have stateful behavior related to a particular group of objects. The new pointcut primitive can more flexibly specify aspect instances when compared against previous implicit mechanisms. We implemented a compiler for association aspects by modifying the AspectJ compiler, which reduces the size of data structures for keeping associations. Our benchmark tests confirm that the overheads of association aspects are reasonably small when compared against functionally equivalent aspects in pure AspectJ that manually manage associations. The expressiveness of association aspects is demonstrated through development of an integrated development environment with and without association aspects.

A system to guide interview-driven requirements elicitation work: domain -- specific navigation using the transition pattern of topics

Abstract: Software is developed on the basis of requirements specification that described user's requirements. Since the software to be developed also contains some errors when the specification includes some errors and omissions of user's requirements, the work to remove software errors brings the process delay and large cost. Therefore, it is required to elicit user's software requirements without any omissions, to analyze the elicited requirements correctly, and to describe the specification. However, even if a worker is a experienced SE, it is not easy to perform these works correctly and efficiently. It is required to develop the technology to support requirements elicitation process. The authors regard software requirements elicitation technology as an interview technique, and propose a system to guide the SE's interview-driven requirements elicitation work. This paper describes a method to implement the system to guide software requirements elicitation work using some domain-specific rules based on the transition pattern of topics.

An overview of AspectJ

Abstract: Aspect] is a simple and practical aspect-oriented extension to Java With just a few new constructs, AspectJ provides support for modular implementation of a range of crosscutting concerns. In AspectJ's dynamic join point model, join points are well-defined points in the execution of the program; pointcuts are collections of join points; advice are special method-like constructs that can be attached to pointcuts; and aspects are modular units of crosscutting implementation, comprising pointcuts, advice, and ordinary Java member declarations. AspectJ code is compiled into standard Java bytecode. Simple extensions to existing Java development environments make it possible to browse the crosscutting structure of aspects in the same kind of way as one browses the inheritance structure of classes. Several examples show that AspectJ is powerful, and that programs written using it are easy to understand.

Test Driven Development: By Example

Abstract: From the Book: “Clean code that works” is Ron Jeffries’ pithy phrase. The goal is clean code that works, and for a whole bunch of reasons: Clean code that works is a predictable way to develop. You know when you are finished, without having to worry about a long bug trail.Clean code that works gives you a chance to learn all the lessons that the code has to teach you. If you only ever slap together the first thing you think of, you never have time to think of a second, better, thing. Clean code that works improves the lives of users of our software.Clean code that works lets your teammates count on you, and you on them.Writing clean code that works feels good.But how do you get to clean code that works? Many forces drive you away from clean code, and even code that works. Without taking too much counsel of our fears, here’s what we do—drive development with automated tests, a style of development called “Test-Driven Development” (TDD for short). In Test-Driven Development, you: Write new code only if you first have a failing automated test.Eliminate duplication. Two simple rules, but they generate complex individual and group behavior. Some of the technical implications are:You must design organically, with running code providing feedback between decisionsYou must write your own tests, since you can’t wait twenty times a day for someone else to write a testYour development environment must provide rapid response to small changesYour designs must consist of many highly cohesive, loosely coupled components, just to make testing easy The two rules imply an order to the tasks ofprogramming: 1. Red—write a little test that doesn’t work, perhaps doesn’t even compile at first 2. Green—make the test work quickly, committing whatever sins necessary in the process 3. Refactor—eliminate all the duplication created in just getting the test to work Red/green/refactor. The TDD’s mantra. Assuming for the moment that such a style is possible, it might be possible to dramatically reduce the defect density of code and make the subject of work crystal clear to all involved. If so, writing only code demanded by failing tests also has social implications: If the defect density can be reduced enough, QA can shift from reactive to pro-active workIf the number of nasty surprises can be reduced enough, project managers can estimate accurately enough to involve real customers in daily developmentIf the topics of technical conversations can be made clear enough, programmers can work in minute-by-minute collaboration instead of daily or weekly collaborationAgain, if the defect density can be reduced enough, we can have shippable software with new functionality every day, leading to new business relationships with customers So, the concept is simple, but what’s my motivation? Why would a programmer take on the additional work of writing automated tests? Why would a programmer work in tiny little steps when their mind is capable of great soaring swoops of design? Courage. Courage Test-driven development is a way of managing fear during programming. I don’t mean fear in a bad way, pow widdle prwogwammew needs a pacifiew, but fear in the legitimate, this-is-a-hard-problem-and-I-can’t-see-the-end-from-the-beginning sense. If pain is nature’s way of saying “Stop!”, fear is nature’s way of saying “Be careful.” Being careful is good, but fear has a host of other effects: Makes you tentativeMakes you want to communicate lessMakes you shy from feedbackMakes you grumpy None of these effects are helpful when programming, especially when programming something hard. So, how can you face a difficult situation and: Instead of being tentative, begin learning concretely as quickly as possible.Instead of clamming up, communicate more clearly.Instead of avoiding feedback, search out helpful, concrete feedback.(You’ll have to work on grumpiness on your own.) Imagine programming as turning a crank to pull a bucket of water from a well. When the bucket is small, a free-spinning crank is fine. When the bucket is big and full of water, you’re going to get tired before the bucket is all the way up. You need a ratchet mechanism to enable you to rest between bouts of cranking. The heavier the bucket, the closer the teeth need to be on the ratchet. The tests in test-driven development are the teeth of the ratchet. Once you get one test working, you know it is working, now and forever. You are one step closer to having everything working than you were when the test was broken. Now get the next one working, and the next, and the next. By analogy, the tougher the programming problem, the less ground should be covered by each test. Readers of Extreme Programming Explained will notice a difference in tone between XP and TDD. TDD isn’t an absolute like Extreme Programming. XP says, “Here are things you must be able to do to be prepared to evolve further.” TDD is a little fuzzier. TDD is an awareness of the gap between decision and feedback during programming, and techniques to control that gap. “What if I do a paper design for a week, then test-drive the code? Is that TDD?” Sure, it’s TDD. You were aware of the gap between decision and feedback and you controlled the gap deliberately. That said, most people who learn TDD find their programming practice changed for good. “Test Infected” is the phrase Erich Gamma coined to describe this shift. You might find yourself writing more tests earlier, and working in smaller steps than you ever dreamed would be sensible. On the other hand, some programmers learn TDD and go back to their earlier practices, reserving TDD for special occasions when ordinary programming isn’t making progress. There are certainly programming tasks that can’t be driven solely by tests (or at least, not yet). Security software and concurrency, for example, are two topics where TDD is not sufficient to mechanically demonstrate that the goals of the software have been met. Security relies on essentially defect-free code, true, but also on human judgement about the methods used to secure the software. Subtle concurrency problems can’t be reliably duplicated by running the code. Once you are finished reading this book, you should be ready to: Start simplyWrite automated testsRefactor to add design decisions one at a time This book is organized into three sections. An example of writing typical model code using TDD. The example is one I got from Ward Cunningham years ago, and have used many times since, multi-currency arithmetic. In it you will learn to write tests before code and grow a design organically.An example of testing more complicated logic, including reflection and exceptions, by developing a framework for automated testing. This example also serves to introduce you to the xUnit architecture that is at the heart of many programmer-oriented testing tools. In the second example you will learn to work in even smaller steps than in the first example, including the kind of self-referential hooha beloved of computer scientists.Patterns for TDD. Included are patterns for the deciding what tests to write, how to write tests using xUnit, and a greatest hits selection of the design patterns and refactorings used in the examples. I wrote the examples imagining a pair programming session. If you like looking at the map before wandering around, you may want to go straight to the patterns in Section 3 and use the examples as illustrations. If you prefer just wandering around and then looking at the map to see where you’ve been, try reading the examples through and refering to the patterns when you want more detail about a technique, then using the patterns as a reference. Several reviewers have commented they got the most out of the examples when they started up a programming environment and entered the code and ran the tests as they read. A note about the examples. Both examples, multi-currency calculation and a testing framework, appear simple. There are (and I have seen) complicated, ugly, messy ways of solving the same problems. I could have chosen one of those complicated, ugly, messy solutions to give the book an air of “reality.” However, my goal, and I hope your goal, is to write clean code that works. Before teeing off on the examples as being too simple, spend 15 seconds imagining a programming world in which all code was this clear and direct, where there were no complicated solutions, only apparently complicated problems begging for careful thought. TDD is a practice that can help you lead yourself to exactly that careful thought.

[서평]「Applying UML and Patterns - An Introduction to Object-Oriented Analysis and Design」

Abstract: We come up with the money for you this proper as competently as easy pretension to acquire those all. We find the money for applying uml and patterns an introduction to object oriented analysis and design an approach to object oriented analysis and design and numerous book collections from fictions to scientific research in any way. along with them is this applying uml and patterns an introduction to object oriented analysis and design an approach to object oriented analysis and design that can be your partner.

abc: an extensible AspectJ compiler

Abstract: Research in the design of aspect-oriented programming languages requires a workbench that facilitates easy experimentation with new language features and implementation techniques In particular, new features for AspectJ have been proposed that require extensions in many dimensions: syntax, type checking and code generation, as well as data flow and control flow analysesThe AspectBench Compiler (abc) is an implementation of such a workbench The base version of abc implements the full AspectJ language Its frontend is built, using the Polyglot framework, as a modular extension of the Java language The use of Polyglot gives flexibility of syntax and type checking The backend is built using the Soot framework, to give modular code generation and analysesIn this paper, we outline the design of abc, focusing mostly on how the design supports extensibility We then provide a general overview of how to use abc to implement an extension Finally, we illustrate the extension mechanisms of abc through a number of small, but non-trivial, examples abc is freely available under the GNU LGPL

Expressive pointcuts for increased modularity

Abstract: In aspect-oriented programming, pointcuts are used to describe crosscutting structure. Pointcuts that abstract over irrelevant implementation details are clearly desired to better support maintainability and modular reasoning. We present an analysis which shows that current pointcut languages support localization of crosscutting concerns but are problematic with respect to information hiding. To cope with the problem, we present a pointcut language that exploits information from different models of program semantics, such as the execution trace, the syntax tree, the heap, static type system, etc., and supports abstraction mechanisms analogous to functional abstraction. We show how this raises the abstraction level and modularity of pointcuts and present first steps toward an efficient implementation by means of a static analysis technique.