[aosd-discuss] Properties of AOP systems

[christopher diggins]

>> This is the only article I am aware of which describes a technique for
>> expressing crosscutting concerns in pure unadulterated C++ (if there are
>> others, please point me to them, thanks). The technique the article
>> describes, IIRC from the debates on this list several months ago, is not
>> considered by some researchers to be strictly AOP, because it lacks the
>> obtrusiveness property, even if it satisfies many of the other properties 
>> of
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> it should be non-obtrusiveness?  could you please say something about
> other properties of aop? thanks.

Yes you are correct, it should be non-obtrusiveness.

I am *not* an expert on AOP, but I would propose that the following 
properties are mandatory for a system to be considered AOP:

1) pointcuts can be expressed in a modular manner
2) advice can be expressed in a modular manner
3) arbitrary advice can be applied to arbitrary pointcut

The non-obtrusiveness property is arguably mandatory as well:

4) the application of advice to a pointcut, should not require any change to 
existing components

Another property which is common, for a AOP system:

5) syntax for expressing pointcut

Hopefully others more experienced with AOP than myself, will comment on this 
list and offer up corrections or alternatives.

Christopher Diggins
http://www.cdiggins.com
http://www.heron-language.com