Comparison of a Visual and a Textual Notation to Express Data Constraints in Aspect-Oriented Join Point Selections: A Controlled Experiment

Dominik Stein, Stefan Hanenberg
{"title":"Comparison of a Visual and a Textual Notation to Express Data Constraints in Aspect-Oriented Join Point Selections: A Controlled Experiment","authors":"Dominik Stein, Stefan Hanenberg","doi":"10.1109/ICPC.2011.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many language constructs have been brought forth by research in aspect-oriented software development which permit a succinct and abstract specification of join point selections (aka pointcuts). These language constructs are believed to improve the comprehensibility of the point cuts in comparison to their manually implemented counterparts. The case of comprehensibility gets undecided, though, if two notations permit to specify join point selection constraints in a likewise succinct and abstract manner. This paper reports on a controlled experiment which compares two notations to specify point cuts, i.e. Trace matches and Join Point Designation Diagrams, with respect to their ability to facilitate the comprehension of data constraints in join point selections. Two comprehension tasks are investigated on a basis of 28 point cuts in a three-factorial within-subject design with 35 participants. The experiment results show that JPDDs improve over Trace matches in most cases.","PeriodicalId":345601,"journal":{"name":"2011 IEEE 19th International Conference on Program Comprehension","volume":"59 9","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2011 IEEE 19th International Conference on Program Comprehension","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPC.2011.9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Many language constructs have been brought forth by research in aspect-oriented software development which permit a succinct and abstract specification of join point selections (aka pointcuts). These language constructs are believed to improve the comprehensibility of the point cuts in comparison to their manually implemented counterparts. The case of comprehensibility gets undecided, though, if two notations permit to specify join point selection constraints in a likewise succinct and abstract manner. This paper reports on a controlled experiment which compares two notations to specify point cuts, i.e. Trace matches and Join Point Designation Diagrams, with respect to their ability to facilitate the comprehension of data constraints in join point selections. Two comprehension tasks are investigated on a basis of 28 point cuts in a three-factorial within-subject design with 35 participants. The experiment results show that JPDDs improve over Trace matches in most cases.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
面向方面连接点选择中表达数据约束的可视化和文本表示法的比较:一项对照实验
在面向方面的软件开发研究中提出了许多语言结构,这些语言结构允许对连接点选择(又称切入点)进行简洁和抽象的说明。这些语言结构被认为与手工实现的对等部分相比,可以提高点切割的可理解性。但是,如果两种表示法允许以同样简洁和抽象的方式指定连接点选择约束,那么可理解性的情况就无法确定了。本文报告了一个对照实验,该实验比较了两种用于指定点切割的符号,即跟踪匹配和连接点指定图,它们有助于理解连接点选择中的数据约束。两个理解任务的调查在28分削减的基础上,在一个三因子的35名参与者的主题内设计。实验结果表明,jpdd在大多数情况下优于Trace匹配。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Precise and Scalable Querying of Syntactical Source Code Patterns Using Sample Code Snippets and a Database Comparison of a Visual and a Textual Notation to Express Data Constraints in Aspect-Oriented Join Point Selections: A Controlled Experiment Trustrace: Improving Automated Trace Retrieval through Resource Trust Analysis Generating Parameter Comments and Integrating with Method Summaries The NiCad Clone Detector
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1