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

The Art of Multiprocessor Programming

https://kodu.ut.ee/~dumas/pubs/BetaWPSimilarity.pdf

Similarity of business process models: Metrics and evaluation

Microsoft has promoted ASP.NET’s new web services more than almost any other part of the.NET Framework. But despite their efforts, confusion is still widespread about what a web service is and, more importantly, what it’s meant to accomplish. This chapter introduces web services and explains their role in Microsoft’s vision of the programmable web. Along the way, you’ll learn about the open standards plumbing that allows web services to work and removes some of the confusion surrounding technical terms like WSDL (Web Service Description Language), SOAP, and UDDI (universal description, discovery, and integration).

Web Services Architecture

E-learning has been a topic of increasing interest in recent years, due mainly to the fact that increased scheduling flexibility as well as tool support can now be offered at a widely affordable level. As a result, many e-learning platforms and systems have been developed and commercialized; these are based on client-server, peer-to-peer, or, more recently, Web service architectures, with a major drawback being their limitations in scalability, availability, and distribution of computing power as well as storage capabilities. This paper tries to remedy this situation by proposing the use of grid computing in the context of e-learning. In particular, it is shown what advantages a utilization of grid computing may have to offer and which applications could benefit from it. Moreover, an architecture for ane-learning grid is outlined, and the notion of a grid learning object is introduced.

Towards E-Learning Grids: Using Grid Computing in Electronic Learning

Transactional Memory (TM) promises to simplify parallel programming by replacing locks with atomic transactions. Despite much recent progress in TM research, there is very little experience using TM to develop realistic parallel programs from scratch. In this paper, we present the results of a detailed case study comparing teams of programmers developing a parallel program from scratch using transactional memory and locks. We analyze and quantify in a realistic environment the development time, programming progress, code metrics, programming patterns, and ease of code understanding for six teams who each wrote a parallel desktop search engine over a fifteen week period. Three randomly chosen teams used Intel's Software Transactional Memory compiler and Pthreads, while the other teams used just Pthreads. Our analysis is exploratory: Given the same requirements, how far did each team get? The TM teams were among the first to have a prototype parallel search engine. Compared to the locks teams, the TM teams spent less than half the time debugging segmentation faults, but had more problems tuning performance and implementing queries. Code inspections with industry experts revealed that TM code was easier to understand than locks code, because the locks teams used many locks (up to thousands) to improve performance. Learning from each team's individual success and failure story, this paper provides valuable lessons for improving TM.

A study of transactional memory vs. locks in practice

The emergence of inexpensive parallel computers powered by multicore chips combined with stagnating clock rates raises new challenges for software engineering. As future performance improvements will not come "for free" from increased clock rates, performance critical applications will need to be parallelized. However, little is known about the engineering principles for parallel general-purpose applications.This paper presents an experience report with four diverse case studies on multicore software development for general-purpose applications. They were programmed in different languages and benchmarked on several multicore computers. Empirical findings include: 1) Multicore computers deliver: Real speedups are achievable, albeit with significant programming effort and speedups that are typically lower than the number of cores employed; 2) Massive refactoring of sequential programs is required, sometimes at several levels. Special tools for parallelization refactorings appear to be an important area of research; 3) Autotuning is indispensable, as manually tuning thread assignment, number of pipeline stages, size of data partitions and other parameters is difficult and error prone; 4) Architectures that encompass several parallel components are poorly understood. Tuneable architectural patterns with parallelism at several levels need to be discovered.

/pdf/software-engineering-for-multicore-systems-an-experience-5fkkgowyqo.pdf

Software engineering for multicore systems: an experience report

Finding synchronization defects is difficult due to non-deterministic orderings of parallel threads. Current tools for detecting synchronization defects tend to miss many data races or produce an overwhelming number of false alarms. In this paper, we describe Helgrind+, a dynamic race detection tool that incorporates correct handling of condition variables and a combination of the lockset algorithm and happens-before relation. We compare our techniques with Intel Thread Checker and the original Helgrind tool on two substantial benchmark suites. Helgrind+ reduces the number of both false negatives (missed races) and false positives. The additional accuracy incurs almost no performance overhead.

Helgrind+: An efficient dynamic race detector

We conducted a case study of parallelizing a real program for multicore computers using currently available libraries and tools. We selected the sequential Bzip2 compression program for the study because it's a computing-intensive, widely used, and relevant application in everyday life. Its source code is available, and its algorithm is well documented. In addition, the algorithm is non-trivial, but, with 8,000 LOC, the application is small enough to manage in a course.

/pdf/parallelizing-bzip2-a-case-study-in-multicore-software-56j07fug1v.pdf

Victor Pankratius

Papers

Towards E-Learning Grids: Using Grid Computing in Electronic Learning

A study of transactional memory vs. locks in practice

Software engineering for multicore systems: an experience report

Helgrind+: An efficient dynamic race detector

Parallelizing Bzip2: A Case Study in Multicore Software Engineering