Here is an example that explains the two Demeter rows.

The static JPM row we will do in DemeterJ and the
dynamic JPM row we will do in AspectJ without touching the
DemeterJ code. Using two different implementation technologies
more clearly separates the two JPMs.

The task is to count the number of
inheritance relationships in a UML-style class diagram:


Cd_graph {
  traversal allInh(UniversalVisitor v) {
  via Alternat to Vertex;
  }
  int countInhRels() {{
	  this.allInh(new UniversalVisitor(){});
          return 0;
  	  }}
}

The purpose of this code is to produce the traversal methods
using an empty visitor that does not do anything interesting.

This is a use of the first join point model where a traversa
strategy introduces traversal methods to the classes in the
scope of the traversal.

Now, to say  what needs to be done in addition to the traversal
we use the JPM of AspectJ:
(we have to know a little bit about the naming conventions
in the generated Java code)

aspect Count {
 static int total;
 pointcut init(): target(Cd_graph) && call(int countInhRels());
 pointcut counting(): target(Vertex) && call(* allInh_Cd_graph_trv_bef (UniversalVisitor));

 before():init() {total=0;}
 before():counting() {total++;}

 int around(): init() {
   thisJoinPoint.proceed();
   return total;
 }
}

Back to Gregor's other point: I can see why he prefers "signatures"
over "class names". But what really happens here is that you use
a flow specification (NOT a cflow) that is like a cflow but
in a different kind of graph. A+ is basically flow(A) along subclass edges
in the class graph (and not in the call graph).
This is explained better in the slides I pointed to earlier.

-- Karl