Do crosscutting concerns cause modularity problems?

Proceedings of the ACM SIGSOFT 20th International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, FSE 2012

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages

  Walker, Robert J ^a   Rawal, Shreya ^a   Sillito, Jonathan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

Author keywords

AOSD; Mozilla; power laws; retroactive study; scattering

Indexed keywords

AOSD; CROSSCUTTING CONCERN; MOZILLA; POWER-LAW; PROGRAM COMPREHENSION; RETROACTIVE STUDY; REVIEW PROCESS; TIME-PERIODS;

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

SCATTERING;

EID: 84871275389     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2393596.2393654     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (41)

1. J. Asundi and R. Jayant. Patch review processes in open source software development communities. In Proc. Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst. Sci., pp. 166c/1-166c/7, 2007.
2. L. Aversano et al. Relationship between design patterns defects and crosscutting concern scattering degree. IET Softw., 3(5):395-409, 2009.
3. K. Ayari et al. Threats on building models from CVS and Bugzilla repositories. In Proc. IBM Conf. Centre Adv. Stud. Collab. Res., pp. 215-228, 2007.
4. P. Baldi et al. A theory of aspects as latent topics. In Proc. ACM SIGPLAN Conf. Object-Oriented Progr. Syst. Lang. Appl., pp. 543-562, 2008.
5. C. Baldwin and K. Clark. Design Rules: The Power of Modularity, volume 1. MIT Press, 1999.
6. M. Bartsch and R. Harrison. An exploratory study of the effect of aspect-oriented programming on maintainability. Softw. Qual. J., 16(1):23-44, 2008.
7. S. Breu et al. Investigating information needs to improve cooperation between developers and bug reporters. In Proc. Conf. Comput. Supported Coop. Work, pp. 301-310, 2010.
8. A. Clauset et al. Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Rev., 51(4):661-703, 2009.
9. M. Eaddy et al. Do crosscutting concerns cause defects? IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 34(4):497-515, 2008.
10. E. Figueiredo et al. Evolving software product lines with aspects. In Proc. Int. Conf. Softw. Eng., pp. 261-270, 2008.
11. E. Figueiredo et al. Crosscutting patterns and design stability. In Proc. Int. Conf. Program Comprehen., pp. 138-147, 2009.
12. E. Figueiredo et al. On the impact of crosscutting concern projection on code measurement. In Proc. Int. Conf. Aspect-oriented Softw. Dev., pp. 81-92, 2011.
13. F. Filho et al. Exceptions and aspects: The devil is in the details. In Proc. ACM SIGSOFT Int. Symp. Foundations Softw. Eng., pp. 152-162, 2006.
14. A. Garcia et al. Modularizing design patterns with aspects. In Proc. Int. Conf. Aspect-Oriented Softw. Dev., pp. 3-14, 2005.
15. D. German. Automating the measurement of open source projects. In Proc Wkshp. Open Source Softw. Eng., pp. 63-67, 2003.
16. D. German. An empirical study of fine-grained software modifications. In Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Softw. Maintenance, pp. 316-325, 2004.
17. P. Greenwood et al. On the impact of aspectual decompositions on design stability. In Proc. Europ. Conf. Obj.-Oriented Progr., pp. 176-200, 2007.
18. A. Ihara et al. An analysis method for improving a bug modification process in open source software development. In Proc. ACM Int. Wkshp. Princip. Softw. Evol./ERCIM Wkshp. Softw. Evol., pp. 135-144, 2009.
19. D. Kelly. A study of design characteristics in evolving software using stability as a criterion. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 32(5):315-329, 2006.
20. G. Kiczales et al. Aspect-oriented programming. In Proc. Europ. Conf. Object-Oriented Progr., pp. 220-242, 1997.
21. J. Kienzle and S. Gélineau. AO challenge: Implementing the ACID properties for transactional objects. In Proc. Int. Conf. Aspect-Oriented Softw. Devel., pp. 202-213, 2006.
22. B. Kitchenham et al. Misleading metrics and unsound analyses. IEEE Softw., 24(2):73-78, 2007.
23. M. LaMantia et al. Analyzing the evolution of large-scale software systems using design structure matrices and design rule theory. In Proc. IEEE/IFIP Working Conf. Softw. Arch., pp. 83-92, 2008.
24. E. Limpert et al. Log-normal distributions across the sciences. BioScience, 51(5):341-352, 2001.
25. R. Lopez-Herrejon and S. Apel. Measuring and characterizing crosscutting in aspect-based programs. In Proc. Int. Conf. Fundamental Approaches Softw. Eng., pp. 423-437, 2007.
26. P. Louridas et al. Power laws in software. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., 18(1):1-26, 2008.
27. A. MacCormack et al. Exploring the structure of complex software designs. Manage. Sci., 52(7):1015-1030, 2006.
28. M. Marin et al. A classification of crosscutting concerns. In Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Softw. Mainten., pp. 673-676, 2005.
29. M. Marin et al. Documenting typical crosscutting concerns. In Proc. Working Conf. Reverse Eng., pp. 31-40, 2007.
30. A. Mockus et al. Two case studies of open source software development. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., 11(3):309-346, 2002.
31. M. Nurolahzade et al. The role of patch review in software evolution. In Proc. ACM Int. Wkshp. Princip. Softw. Evol./ERCIM Wkshp. Softw. Evol., pp. 9-18, 2009.
32. D. Parnas. On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Commun. ACM, 15(12):1053-1058, 1972.
33. A. Przybyłek. An empirical assessment of the impact of aspect-oriented programming on software modularity. In Proc. Int. Conf. Eval. Novel Approaches Softw. Eng., pp. 139-148, 2010.
34. A. Przybyłek. Where the truth lies: AOP and its impact on software modularity. In Proc. Int. Conf. Fundamental Approaches Softw. Eng., pp. 447-461, 2011.
35. M. Revelle et al. Understanding concerns in software. In Proc. IEEE Int. Wkshp. Progr. Comprehen., pp. 23-32, 2005.
36. J. Siadat et al. Optimization aspects in network simulation. In Proc. Int. Conf. Aspect-Oriented Softw. Dev., pp. 122-133, 2006.
37. K. Sullivan et al. The structure and value of modularity in software design. In Proc. Europ. Softw. Eng. Conf./ACM SIGSOFT Int. Symp. Foundations Softw. Eng., pp. 99-108, 2001.
38. P. Tarr et al. N degrees of separation: Multi-dimensional separation of concerns. In Proc. Int. Conf. Softw. Eng., pp. 107-119, 1999.
39. C. Taube-Schock et al. Can we avoid high coupling? In Proc. Europ. Conf. Object-Oriented Progr., pp. 204-228, 2011.
40. S. Yau and J. Collofello. Design stability measures for software maintenance. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 11(9):849-856, 1985.
41. C. Zhang and H.-A. Jacobsen. Quantifying aspects in middleware platforms. In Proc. Int. Conf. Aspect-Oriented Softw. Dev., pp. 130-139, 2003.