RE: [abc] oopsla paper

Many thanks, Damien!

> Minor comments:
>
> p.6 Figure 5: as I can't tell the difference between the line styles
> in the graph, it would be helpful to have labels next to each line (or
> the items in the key appearing in the same vertical order as the
> lines). Otherwise the graph can't be understood without reading all
> the text as well

Pavel has already done this.

>
> p.7 paragraph following "Challenge 2": "The poor performance of
> TMNoIndex ..." - what is the slowdown between TMNoIndex and TM? Even
> with log-scale, it looks smallish on the graph (certainly less than
> the difference between TMNoFilter and TM)...

Thanks for spotting that - rephrased to reflect the modest slowdown,
and forward reference to later experiments for crucial importance.

>
> p.8 right column, "Observer" paragraph. "In that version..." that
> sentence is ambiguous to me. Does it mean "In JHotDraw, updating of
> figure displays is done via standard Java listeners; in AJHotDraw we
> replaced..." ?

No, I've rephrased:

In the original {\sc AJHotDraw},
      updating of figure displays is done via standard Java listeners;
>
> p. 10 table 3: nice numbers! :-)

yeah!

>
> p.10 left column (section 5.1): "one way of making a performance
> comparison is to look at PQL (...) versus that of tracematches (...)"
> -> to look at the _performance_ of PQL versus that of....

done

 
> p. 11 column 2 (end of section 5). Is it possible to use the AspectJ
> version without contains() to compare? if not, mention it

added row to table, and a few sentences.

> ===> Section 6

Pavel is looking after these comments....

> => Future work
>
> p. 17, column 2, end of section 7.3 - comments on SLAM are a bit
> unclear. Also, SLAM doesn't really do a static analysis (it might run
> forever). Ignoring variable bindings, I can see how a declare error
> tracematch is essentially what SLAM does though
>

no space - we're down to the last line. Left as it is.

> => Conclusion
>
> Typo p. 18 column 2: featuers

already done by others

>
> That's all from me, nice paper!

Once again many thanks Damien!
Received on Fri Mar 17 16:04:20 2006