Re: [abc] revision of CC submission

I think we should give it a try. Based on the marks of the other
two CC papers, that did get in, I think that the abc CC paper must
have been right on the border of papers that were accepted.

Who has some time to work on it? I can spend a bit of time later this
week, but I also have two weeks worth of marking to catch up on, and
lots of other things to organize.

Cheers, Laurie

+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Laurie Hendren, Professor, School of Computer Science |
| McGill University |
| 318 McConnell Engineering Building tel: (514) 398-7391 |
| 3480 University Street fax: (514) 398-3883 |
| Montreal, Quebec H3A 2A7 hendren@cs.mcgill.ca |
| CANADA http://www.sable.mcgill.ca/~hendren |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Ondrej LHOTAK wrote:

> I've come down with some sort of flu, so unfortunately, I probably won't
> be able to contribute much to the CC paper fixup, at least not for the
> next few days.
>
> I've thought a bit about ECOOP. The marks we got at CC were quite high,
> so it's possible that the exact same paper would have been accepted at
> ECOOP, with its more AOP-friendly program committee. The improvements
> that Oege suggests can only improve the chances of acceptance, so my
> opinion is that we have nothing to lose by improving it as much as
> possible and sending it in.
>
> Ondrej
>
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 02:26:30PM +0000, Oege de Moor wrote:
> > Having contemplated the reviews of the CC paper, I think we want to
> > expand it by dumping the current sections 6 and 7, and instead have
> > a substantial section making a comparison to ajc which shows why
> > the architecture proposed here is a good thing. This will be needed
> > for SP&E and ECOOP alike....
> >
> > 6. Comparison with ajc
> > 6.1 Source characteristics
> > (use SLOCcount for this)
> > - How big are ajc and abc?
> > - What are the relative sizes of the type checkers?
> > - What are the relative sizes of the weavers?
> > - How well is ajc separated from the Eclipse compiler?
> > How well is abc separated from Polyglot?
> > - Why does ajc use its own version of BCEL?
> > Is Soot also specific to abc (answer: no)
> >
> > 6.2 Compile times
> > - benchmarks:
> > 3 pure Java (including abc itself)
> > 5 aspect (LoD-sim, LoD-weka, nullcheck-sim, profiler, ants)
> > a few synthetic benchmarks, where we can artificially vary
> > the number of pieces of advice and the size of the base program
> > - measure:
> > times for ajc and abc just running semantic checks
> > times for ajc, abc -O0, abc
> >
> > 6.3 Runtime of object code
> > - what is the effect of Soot optims?
> > compare ajc, abc, ajc+Soot
> > - brief summary of further optims, ref to PLDI submission
> >
> > 6.4 Ease of code generation and weaving
> > - choice of rewriting at source versus IR:
> > * thisJP -> thisJPStaticPart trafo in Polyglot
> > (cf how done in ajc?)
> > - advantages of Jimple for weaving
> > * lots of locals in LoD for ajc
> > * can rely on nullcheck elim when doing
> > lazy inits
> > - other examples?
> >
> > 6.5 extensibility
> > - brief summary and ref to AOSD paper
> >
> > 7. Other related work
> >
> > Implementation of AspectWerkz, JBoss, AspectC++.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Received on Mon Dec 13 14:12:28 2004