Aspectual Component Implementation Examples Component Package Component Participant

Aspectual Component Implementation Examples

Component. Package Component Participant expected. Op(){expected. Op(); get. Host()} get. Host() Connector. Package My. Host to. Modify(){part. Op(); }// override aux(){super. to. Modify()} part Participant. Anonymous. Extended expected. Op(){aux()} get. Host(){My. Host. this} main(){new My. Host(). to. Modify() } “outer. super. to. Modify()” simulated with aux() is not elegant Johan’s solution 1 based on Mira’s inner class solution. Modification interface Host. Package is represented also by Host // to play role of participant abstract class, not by to. Modify(){} Method argument as // to be mapped to Op() proposed by Mira.

Component. Package Component Participant expected. Op(){expected. Op(); get. Host()} get. Host() Connector. Package My. Host to. Modify(){part. Op(); } aux(){super. to. Modify()} part Participant. Anonymous. Extended expected. Op(){aux()} get. Host(){My. Host. this} main(){new My. Host(). to. Modify() } Problem: when we have a Host-object and want to get Does it work with multiple modified behavior, need to create a My. Host object. participants? With multiple hosts? Host. Package Looks like. Host to. Modify(){}

Component. Package Component Participant expected. Op(){expected. Op(); get. Host()} get. Host() More complex connector: one host but multiple methods are modified. Creates multiple inheritance!? Is this why Mira’s implementation is more complex? Connector. Package My. Host to. Modify 1(){part 1. Op(); }//overrride aux 1(){super. to. Modify 1()} part 1 Participant. Anonymous. Extended expected. Op(){aux 1()} get. Host(){My. Host. this} main(){new My. Host(). to. Modify 1()} part 2 Participant. Anonymous. Extended expected. Op(){aux 2()} get. Host(){My. Host. this} main(){new My. Host(). to. Modify 2()} to. Modify 2(){part 2. Op(); }//override aux 2(){super. to. Modify 2()}