物件導向軟體之架構(Object-Oriented Software Construction)探討

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.

An overview of AspectJ

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.

Test Driven Development: By Example

https://www.cs.usask.ca/~croy/papers/2009/RCK_SCP_Clones.pdf

Comparison and evaluation of code clone detection techniques and tools: A qualitative approach

Code duplication or copying a code fragment and then reuse by pasting with or without any modiflcations is a well known code smell in software maintenance. Several studies show that about 5% to 20% of a software systems can contain duplicated code, which is basically the results of copying existing code fragments and using then by pasting with or without minor modiflcations. One of the major shortcomings of such duplicated fragments is that if a bug is detected in a code fragment, all the other fragments similar to it should be investigated to check the possible existence of the same bug in the similar fragments. Refactoring of the duplicated code is another prime issue in software maintenance although several studies claim that refactoring of certain clones are not desirable and there is a risk of removing them. However, it is also widely agreed that clones should at least be detected. In this paper, we survey the state of the art in clone detection research. First, we describe the clone terms commonly used in the literature along with their corresponding mappings to the commonly used clone types. Second, we provide a review of the existing clone taxonomies, detection approaches and experimental evaluations of clone detection tools. Applications of clone detection research to other domains of software engineering and in the same time how other domain can assist clone detection research have also been pointed out. Finally, this paper concludes by pointing out several open problems related to clone detection research.

/pdf/a-survey-on-software-clone-detection-research-3hmh7abinb.pdf

A Survey on Software Clone Detection Research

Many of the existing approaches in Software Comprehension focus on program structure or external documentation. However, by analyzing formal information the informal semantics contained in the vocabulary of source code are overlooked. To understand software as a whole, we need to enrich software analysis with the developer knowledge hidden in the code naming. This paper proposes the use of information retrieval to exploit linguistic information found in source code, such as identifier names and comments. We introduce Semantic Clustering, a technique based on Latent Semantic Indexing and clustering to group source artifacts that use similar vocabulary. We call these groups semantic clusters and we interpret them as linguistic topics that reveal the intention of the code. We compare the topics to each other, identify links between them, provide automatically retrieved labels, and use a visualization to illustrate how they are distributed over the system. Our approach is language independent as it works at the level of identifier names. To validate our approach we applied it on several case studies, two of which we present in this paper. Note: Some of the visualizations presented make heavy use of colors. Please obtain a color copy of the article for better understanding.

/pdf/semantic-clustering-identifying-topics-in-source-code-44bvukwjmc.pdf

Semantic clustering: Identifying topics in source code

As systems evolve their structure change in ways not expected upfront As time goes by, the knowledge of the developers becomes more and more critical for the process of understanding the system That is, when we want to understand a certain issue of the system we ask the knowledgeable developers Yet, in large systems, not every developer is knowledgeable in all the details of the system Thus, we would want to know which developer is knowledgeable in the issue at hand In this paper we make use of the mapping between the changes and the author identifiers (eg, user names) provided by versioning repositories We first define a measurement for the notion of code ownership We use this measurement to define the ownership map visualization to understand when and how different developers interacted in which way and in which part of the system We report the results we obtained on several large systems

/pdf/how-developers-drive-software-evolution-2jhutplmm7.pdf

How developers drive software evolution

As systems evolve and their structure decays, maintainers need accurate and automatic identification of the design problems. Current approaches for automatic detection of design problems are not accurate enough because they analyze only a single version of a system and consequently they miss essential information as design problems appear and evolve over time. Our approach is to use the historical information of the suspected flawed structure to increase the accuracy of the automatic problem detection. Our means is to define measurements which summarize how persistent the problem was and how much maintenance effort was spent on the suspected structure. We apply our approach on a large scale case study and show how it improves the accuracy of the detection of god classes and data classes, and additionally how it adds valuable semantical information about the evolution of flawed design structures.

/pdf/using-history-information-to-improve-design-flaws-detection-2w8il68dfa.pdf

Using history information to improve design flaws detection

Knowing where to start reverse engineering a large software system, when no information other than the system's source code itself is available, is a daunting task. Having the history of the code (i.e., the versions) could be of help if this would not imply analyzing a huge amount of data. We present an approach for identifying candidate classes for reverse engineering and reengineering efforts. Our solution is based on summarizing the changes in the evolution of object-oriented software systems by defining history measurements. Our approach, named Yesterday's Weather, is an analysis based on the retrospective empirical observation that classes which changed the most in the recent past also suffer important changes in the near future. We apply this approach on two case studies and show how we can obtain an overview of the evolution of a system and pinpoint its classes that might change in the next versions.

/pdf/yesterday-s-weather-guiding-early-reverse-engineering-15cjlm2nlg.pdf

Yesterday's Weather: guiding early reverse engineering efforts by summarizing the evolution of changes

Understanding large software systems is a challenging task, and to support it many approaches have been developed. Often, the result of these approaches categorize existing entities into new groups or associates them with mutually exclusive properties. In this paper we present the distribution map as a generic technique to visualize and analyze this type of result. Our technique is based on the notion of focus, which shows whether a property is well-encapsulated or cross-cutting, and the notion of spread, which shows whether the property is present in several parts of the system. We present a basic visualization and complement it with measurements that quantify focus and spread. To validate our technique we show evidence of applying it on the result sets of different analysis approaches. As a conclusion we propose that the distribution map technique should belong to any reverse engineering toolkit

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/4021304/4021305/04021339.pdf

Tudor Gîrba

Papers

Semantic clustering: Identifying topics in source code

How developers drive software evolution

Using history information to improve design flaws detection

Yesterday's Weather: guiding early reverse engineering efforts by summarizing the evolution of changes

Distribution Map