Hi Mira and Stephan:

I enjoyed reading your paper for the ASoC workshop at
ICSE 2001 that you sent to the AIRES list. A great paper.
/proj/adaptive/www/papers/mira
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/research/demeter/papers/mira/

I found your paragraph about the mechanism for selecting methods
for replacement very interesting. You say that a function
could be allowed that by introspective examination selects
methods for replacement.

This is an important topic because their is a tradeoff:
When we modularise one concern, we might scatter information
from another concern and those replacement-selection
functions you mention allow to
reduce the scattering.

An example: The ReadersWriters component that replaces
the read and write method of a participant. When we apply 
the pattern ReadersWriters to the HashTable class, the
adapter contains some of the details of the HashTable
class, for example, by enumerating all readers and all writers.
A function, as you suggest, could compute the readers
and writers, making the adapter more robust.

Robustness of adapters is one of our focal points; that
is why we use traversal strategies to map participant graphs
to classes.

I think that designs should be done in such a way 
so that your replacement-selection functions can be written
elegantly, keeping the adapters free from too many details.

For a similar reason, we design class graphs in such a way
that traversal strategies can be written easily, 
keeping the adapters free from too many details.

-- Karl