PL
 |
EN

PL EN

Preferencje help
Polish version English version Język
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników
Tytuł artykułu

Modelling and evaluation of software architectures

Autorzy
Zalewski A.
Identyfikatory
Warianty tytułu
Języki publikacji
EN
Abstrakty
EN
Software architecture is an important development artefact, with substantial influence over the quality of a software system. This monograph presents the state of the art in modelling and evaluating software architectures, which are two closely related research areas influencing each other. Three main approaches to architectural modelling have been covered, i.e. models of software structure, architectural decisions, and models of architecture description. Semi-formal models, such as block diagrams models, UML, SysML and Archimate, are mainly used for modelling software structure. Architectural decisions capture the rationale underlying a given architectural design and the logic of the architecting process. The most important models for documenting architectural decisions have been discussed and compared: textual models, a comprehensive, flagship model by Zimmerman et al. extended with decision-making support, as well as the author's Maps of Architectural Decisions model, which has been tailored to the needs of documenting the evolution of rapidly and unpredictably evolving systems. Architectural patterns and tactics, which are closely related to architectural decisions, are also covered by this survey. The System Organisation Pattern is the author's proposition for the effective representation of top-level architecture of large-scale distributed systems, combining concepts of architectural patterns and architectural decisions. The models of architectural description focus on organizing architectural information according to the stakeholders' concerns, captured by viewpoints. The monograph covers the most important developments in this area, i.e. ISO 42010:2011 standards, Kruchten's 4+1 views, Zachman's framework and recent developments regarding viewpoints. Architecture evaluation methods have evolved alongside architectural modelling. A new taxonomy of architecture evaluation methods, based on the method's applicability has been introduced, and two basic paradigms of architecture evaluation have been identified, Eighteen state-of-the-art architecture evaluation methods have been characterised according to a uniform description scheme. The Early Architecture Evaluation Methods, developed for the evaluation of large-scale system architectures at the inception stage of development, being the author's contribution to the research on architectural evaluation, was included in this survey. Such a comprehensive survey of architecture evaluation methods enabled the state of the art to be analysed, and a further research Outlook to be drawn up.
Słowa kluczowe
EN
PL
Wydawca
Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Warszawskiej
Czasopismo
Prace Naukowe Politechniki Warszawskiej. Elektronika
Rocznik
2013
Tom
z. 187
Strony
3--116
Opis fizyczny
Bibliogr. 173 poz., rys., tab., wykr.
Twórcy
autor
Zalewski A.
  • Instytut Automatyki i Informatyki Stosowanej
Bibliografia
  • [1] Abdullatif A.A. and Pooley R.J.: UML-JMT: a Tool for Evalualing Performance Requirements. 17th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on Engineering of Computer-Based Systems. IEEE, 2009.
  • [2] Abowd G., Bass L., Clements P., Kazman R., Northrop L., Zaremski A.: Recommended Best Industrial Practice for Software Architecture Evaluation. CMU/SEI-96-TR-025. Carnegie Mellon University, 1997.
  • [3] Alexander Ch. Notes on the synthesis of form, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1964.
  • [4] Alexander Ch., Ishikava S., Silverstein M., el al. A Pattern Language: towns, building, construction. Oxford University Press, New York, 1977.
  • [5] Arsanjani A., Ghosh S., Allam A., Abdollah T., Ganapathy S., Holley K.: SOMA: A method for developing service-oriented solutions. IBM Systems Journal, vol. 47, No 3, pp. 377-396. IBM 2008.
  • [6] Babar M.A., Dingsoyr T., Lago P., van Vliet H.: Architecture knowledge management. Theory and Practice. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2009.
  • [7] Babar M.A., Gorton I. Software Architecture Review: The State of Practice. Computer 42, No 7, pp. 26-32, IEEE 2009.
  • [8] Babar M.A., Zhu L., Jeffery R.: A framework for classifying and comparing software architecture evaluation methods. Australian Software Engineering Conference, 2004, pp. 309-318, IEEE 2004.
  • [9] Baldwin C.Y. and Clark B.K., Design Rules, Vol. 1: The Power of Modularity. First Edition. The MIT Press, 2000. ISBN: 0262024667.
  • [10] Baldwin C.Y. and Woodard C.J.: Competition in Modular Clusters. Harvard Business School, 2007. (available online at http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5842.html)
  • [11] Baldwin C.Y, and Clark K.B. Sun wars: Competition within a modular cluster, 1985-1990. In D.B. Yoffie (Ed.), Competing in the age of digital convergence: 123-158. Harvard Business School Press. Boston, 1997.
  • [12] Balsamo S., Di MarcoA., Inverardi R, Simeoni M.: Model-based performance prediction in software development: a survey. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 30, No 5, pp. 295-310, IKEE2004.
  • [13] Barcelos R. and Travassos G.: Evaluation approaches for software architectural documents: a systematic review. In Ibero-American Workshop on Requirements Engineering and Software Environments (IDEAS'06), 2006.
  • [14] Basili V.R., Caldiera G., Rombach H.: The Goal Question Metric Paradigm in: J.J. Marciniak (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1994, pp. 528-532.
  • [15] Bass L., Clements P, Kazman R.: Software Architecture in Practice, second edition. Addison-Wesley, 2003. ISBN 0-321-15495-9.
  • [16] Bass L., Clements P., Kazman R.: Software Architecture in Practice, third edition. Addison-Wesley, 2012. ISBN 0-321-81573-4.
  • [17] Bass L., Nord R., Wood W., Zubrow D., Ozkayal.: Analysis of architecture evaluation data. Journal of Systems and Software, Sep. 2008, vol. 81, iss. 9, pp. 1443-1455; Elsevier, 2008.
  • [18] Bass L., Nord R., Wood W., Zubrow D.: Risk Themes Discovered Through Architecture Evaluations. TECHN1CAL REPORTCMU/SEI-2006-TR-012 ESC-TR-2006-012. Carnegie Mellon University, 2006.
  • [19] Bengtsson P, Lassing N., Bosch J., van Vliei H.: Architecture-level modifiability analysis (ALMA). Journal of Systems and Software, Volume 69, Issues 1-2, l January 2004, pp. 129-147. Elsevier 2004.
  • [20] Bengtsson P.O. and Bosch J.: Architecture Level Prediction of Software Maintenance, Proc. Third European Conf. Software Maintenance and Reeng., pp. 139-147. IEEE 1999.
  • [21] Bengtsson P.O. and Bosch J.: Scenario-Based Architecture Reengineering, Proc. Fifth Int'l Conf. Software Reuse(ICSR 5), pp. 308-317. IEEE, 1998.
  • [22] Bennett K.H. and Rajlich V. T.: Software maintenance and evolution: a roadmap. In Proceedings of the Conference on The Future of Software Engineering (ICSE '00). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 73-87, ACM 2000.
  • [23] Bertalanfty L.. System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. George Braziller, Inc., New York, 1968.
  • [24] Booch G., Maksimchuk R.A., Engel M.W., Young B.J., Conallen J., Houston K. A.: Object-Oriented Analysis and Design with Applications. 3rd edition Addison-Wesley Professional, 2007. ISBN-10: 020189551X
  • [25] Boucke N., Holvoet T., Lefever T., Sempels R., Schelfthout K., Weyns D., Wielemans J.: Applying the architecture tradeoff analysis method (ATAM) to an industrial multi-agent system application. Report CW 431, Department of Computer Science, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (Dec. 2005).
  • [26] Breivold H.P., Crnkovic I., Larsson M.: Software architecture evolution through evolvability analysis. Journal of Systems and Software, Volume 85, Issue 11, November 2012, pp. 2574-2592. Elservier, 2012.
  • [27] Breivold H.P, Crnkovic I., Eriksson P.J.: Analyzing Software Evolvability. In: 32nd Annual IEEE International Computer Software and Applications Conference, COMPSAC '08, pp. 327-330. IEEE 2008.
  • [28] Breivold H.P., Crnkovic I., Land R., Larsson M.: Analyzing Software Evolvability of an Industrial Automation Control System: A Case Study. The Third International Conference on Software Engineering Advances (ICSEA '08), pp. 205-213. IEEE 2008.
  • [29] Breivold H.P., Crnkovic L: A Systematic Review on Architecting for Software Evolvability. 21st Australian Software Engineering Conference (ASWEC), 6-9 April 2010, pp. 13-22, IEEE 2010.
  • [30] Breivold H.P., Crnkovic I.: Analysis of Software Evolvability in Quality Models. 35th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, 2009. SEAA '09, pp. 279-282, 27-29 Aug. 2009.
  • [31] Brooks F.P.: No Silver Bullet - Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering. IEEE Computer 20 (4), pp. 10-19, IEEE 1987.
  • [32] Buschmann F., Henney K., Schmidt D.C.: Pattern Oriented Software Architecture Volume 4: A Pattern Language for Distributed Computing, John Wiley&Sons, 2007, ISBN 0470059028.
  • [33] Buschmann F., Henney K., Schmidt D.C.; Pattern Oriented Software Architecture Volume 5: On Patterns and Pattern Languages, John Wiley&Sons, 2007. ISBN 0471486485.
  • [34] Buschmann F., Meunier R., Rohnert H., Peter S., Stal M.: Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture Volume 1: A System of Patterns. John Wiley&Sons, 1996. ISBN-10: 0471958697
  • [35] Capilla R., Zimmermann O., Zdun U., Avgeriou P., Kuster J.M.: An Enhanced Architectural Knowledge Metamodel Linking Architectural Design Decisions to other Artifacts in the Software Engineering Lifecycle. Proceedings of 5th European Conference on Software Architecture (ECSA 2011). LNCS, vol. 6903, pp. 303-318. Springer-Verlag, 2011.
  • [36] Chidamber, S.R., Kemerer, C.F.: A metrics suite for object oriented design. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. vol. 20, iss. 6, pp. 476-493. IEEE 1994.
  • [37] Clements P. and Bass L., 2010. The Business Goals Viewpoint. IEEE Software. Nov.-Dec. 2010, vol. 27, No 6, pp. 38-45. IEEE 2010.
  • [38] Clements P., Bachmann F., Bass L„ Garlan D., Ivers J., Little R., Merson P., Nord R., Stafford J.; Documenting Software Architectures: Views and Beyond (2nd edition). Addison Wesley Professional, 2010. ISBN 0321552687.
  • [39] Clements P, Kazman R., and Klein M.: Evaluating Software Architectures: Methods and Case Studies, Addison-Wesley, 2002. ISBN 0-201-70482-X.
  • [40] Clements P.: Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs. CMU/SEI-2000-TN-009. SEI, Carnegie Mellon University, 2000.
  • [41] Cockburn A.: Agile Software Development: The Cooperative Game. 2nd edition (October 29, 2006). Addison-Wesley Professional, 2006. ISBN-10: 0321482751,
  • [42] Coplien J., Bjornvig G.: Lean Architecture: For Agile Software Development. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. eISBN: 9780470665039
  • [43] Cortellessa V., Di Marco A., Eramo R., Pierantonio A., Trubiani C.: Digging into UML models to remove performance antipatterns. In Proceedings of the 2010 ICSE Workshop on Quantitative Stochastic Models in the Verification and Design of Software Systems (QUOVADIS '10), pp. 9-16. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2010.
  • [44] Cortellessa V., Martens A., Reussner R., Trubiani C.: Towards the identification of "Guilty" performance antipatterns. In Proceedings of the first joint WOSP/SIPEW international conference on Performance engineering (WOSP/SIPEW '10), pp. 245-246. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2010.
  • [45] de Boer R,C, Lago P, Telea A., Van Vliet H. Ontology-driven visualization of architectural design decisions. Joint Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture 2009 & European Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA/ECSA 2009), pp.51,60, IEEE 2009.
  • [46] de Silva L. and Balasubramaniam D.: Controlling software architecture erosion: A survey, Journal of Systems and Software, Volume 85, Issue I, January 2012, pp. 132-151. Elservier, 2012
  • [47] Dijkstra E.W.: Letters to the editor: go to statement considered harmful. Communications of the ACM. Vol. 11, Issue 3 (March 1968), pp. 147-148, ACM 1968.
  • [48] Dijkstra E.W.: The structure of the \"THE\"-multiprogramming system. Communications of the ACM. Vol. 11, issue 5 (May 1968), pp. 341-346, ACM, 196S
  • [49] Dobrica L. and Niemela E.:A survey on software architecture analysis methods. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. Jul. 2002, vol. 28, No 7, pp. 638-653. IEEE 2002.
  • [50] DoDAF 2.02. Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF), Version 2.0. Available on-line: http://dodcio.defensŁgov/dodaf20.aspx. US Depamnent of Defence, 2010.
  • [51] Duenas J.C., de Oliveira W.L., de la Puente J.N.: A Software Architecture Evaluation Model. LNCS, vol. 1429, pp. 148-157. Springer-Verlag 1998.
  • [52] Ethiraj S. and Levinthal D.: Modularity and innovation in complex systems. Management Science, vol. 50, No 2, pp. 159-173, February. 2004.
  • [53] Falessi, D., Cantone, C., Kazman, R., Kruchten, P: Decision-making techniques for software architecture design: A comparative survey. ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 43, iss. 4, October 2011.
  • [54] Ferber S.. Heidl, Luiz P.: Reviewing product line architectures: experience report of ATAM in an automotive context. in: Revised Papers from the 4th Int. Workshop on Software Product-Family Engineering (PFE'01). LNCS Volume 2290, pp. 364-382. Springer-Verlag, 2002.
  • [55] Finkelstein A., Kramer J., Nuseibeh B., Finkelstein L., Goedicke M.: Viewpoints: A framework for integrating multiple perspectives in system development. Int. Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 2(1): pp. 31-58, World Scientific, 1992.
  • [56] Folmer E., Bosch J.: Architecting for usability: a survey. Journal of Systems and Software, Volume 70. Issues 1-2, February 2004. pp. 61-78. Elsevier, 2004.
  • [57] Folmer E., Bosch J.: Case studies on analyzing software architectures for usability. 31st EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, 2005, pp. 206-213. IEEE 2005.
  • [58] Folmer E., van Gurp J., Bosch J.: Software Architecture Analysis of Usability. Proc. EHCI-DSVIS2004, Springer, LNCS. vol. 3425. Springer-Verlag 2005.
  • [59] Folmer E.: Software Architecture Analysis of Usability. Ph.D. thesis. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. PrintPartners Ipskamp, Enschede. 2004. ISBN 90-367-2361-2.
  • [60] Gacek C., Abd-Allah A., Clark B., Boehm B.: On the Definition of Software System Architecture. Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Architectures for Software Systems. School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, 1995. [Available as Technical Report USC/CSE-95-TR-500, April 1995].
  • [61] Gamma E,, Helm R., Johnson R., Vlissides J.: Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley Professional, 1994. ISBN-10: 0-201-63361-2.
  • [62] Garcia J., Popescu D., Edwards G., Medvidovic N.: Identifying architectural bad smells. In Proc. 13th European Conf. on Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR'09), pp. 255-258. IEEE, 2009.
  • [63] Garcia-Molina, H„ Ullman, J.D., Widom, J.D.: Database Systems: The Complete Book. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 2001.
  • [64] Garlan D., Barnes J.M., Schmerl B., Celiku O.: Evolution styles: Foundations and tool support for software architecture evolution. Proceedings of WICSA/ECSA 2009, pp. 131-140. IEEE 2009.
  • [65] Harrison, N.B., Avgeriou, P, Zdun, U.: Using Patterns to Capture Architectural Decisions. IEEE Software, vol. 24, iss. 4, pp. 38-45. IEEE 2007
  • [66] Harrison, N.,Avgeriou. P.: Pattern-Based Architecture Reviews, IEEE Software, vol. 28, iss. 6, pp. 66-71. IEEE 2011.
  • [67] Harrison, R„ Counsell, S., Nithi. R.: An Evaluation of the MOOD Set of Object-Oriented Software Metrics. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. vol. 24, iss. 6, pp. 491-496. IEEE 1998.
  • [68] Hatley D.J., Pribhai L.A.; Strategies for real-time systems specifications. Dorset House. New York., 1987.
  • [69] Hatton S.: Choosing the Right Prioritisation Method. 19th Australian Conference on Software Engineering (ASWEC 2008), pp. 517-526, IEEE 2008,
  • [70] Hoare C.A.R.: Communicating sequential processes. Communications of ACM, vol. 21, issue 8, pp. 666-677. ACM, 1978.
  • [71] ISO/IEC 10746-1,2,3,4. Open Disiributed Processing- Reference Model: overview, foundations, architecture, architectural semantics. ISO/IEC 1998.
  • [72] ISO/IEC 19505. Information technology - Object Management Group Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), Infrastructure, (ISO/IEC 19505-2:2012). Information technology – Object Management Group Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), Superstructure (ISO/IEC 19505-2:2012).
  • [73] ISO/IEC 25010:2011. Systems and software engineering - Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE)-- System and software quality models. ISO/IEC 2011.
  • [74] ISO/IEC 9126-1, Software engineering - product quality - Pan I: Quality Model, first ed.: 2001-06-15.
  • [75] ISO/IEC/IEEE 24765:2010(E), 2010. Systems and software engineering- Vocabulary.
  • [76] ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2007, IEEE 1471. Systems and software engineering – Recommended practice for architectural description of software-intensive systems. ISO/IEC 2011, IEEE 2007.
  • [77] ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011. Systems and software engineering – Architecture description. ISO/IEC 2011,IEEE 2011.
  • [78] Jansen A. and Bosch J.: Software Architecture as a Set of Architectural Design Decisions. Proceedings of 5th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA'05), pp. 109-120. IEEE 2005.
  • [79] Jarczyk A. P. J., Loffler P, Shipman F.M.: Design Rationale for Software Engineering: A Survey. In Proceedings of the 25th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1992, Vol. 2, pp. 577-586, IEEE, 1992.
  • [80] Jensen K.: Coloured Petri nets. Advances in Petri Nets 1986, Part I Proceedings of an Advanced Course Bad Honnef, pp. 248-299. Springer-Yerlag, 1986.
  • [81] Jones L.G ., Lattaiize A. J.: Using the architecture tradcoff analysis method to evaluate a wargame simulation system: a case study. CMU SEI Technical Report CMU/SEI-2001-TN-022. Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA(Dec. 2001).
  • [82] Kazman R., Asundi J., Klein M.: Quantifying the costs and benefits of architectural decisions. Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 297-306. IEEE, 2001,
  • [83] Kazman R., Bass L., Abowd G., Webb M.: SAAM: A Method for Analyzing the Properties of Software Architectures, Proc. 16th Int’l Conf. Sofrware Eng., pp. 81-90, ACM 1994.
  • [84] Kazman R., Bass L., Klein M., Lattanze T„ Northrop L: A Basis for Analyzing Software Architecture Analysis Methods. Software Quality Journal, vol. 13, pp. 329-355. Springer 2005.
  • [85] Kazman R., Bass L., Klein M.: The essential components of software architecture design and analysis. Subscribed Journal The Journal of Systems & Software. Vol: 79, Issue: 8, August, 2006, pp. 1207-1216. Elsevier, 2006.
  • [86] Kazman R., G. Abowd, L. Bass, and P. Clements. 1996. Scenario-Based Analysis of Software Architecture. IEEE Software, pp. 47-55, Nov. 1996.
  • [87] Kazman R., Klein M., Barbacci M., Longstaff T., Lipson H., Carrierc J.: The architecture tradeoff analysis method. Fourth IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems, 1998. pp. 68-78.
  • [88] Kircher M., Jain P: Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture Volume 3: Patterns for Resource Management. John Wiley&Sons, 2004. ISBN 0470845252.
  • [89] Klein M., Ralya T., Pollak B., Obenza R., Harbour M.O.; Practitioner's Handbook for Real-Time Analysis: Guide to Rate Monotonic Analysis for Real-Time Systems. Kluver Academic Publishers, 1993. ISBN 0-7923-9361-9.
  • [90] Koziołek H.: Sustainability evaluation of software architectures: a systematic review. QoSAISARCS 2011. ACM SIGSOFT2011.
  • [91] Kruchten P, Capilla R., Duenas J.C.: The Decision View's Role in Software Architecture Practice. IEEE Software, vol.26. No 2, pp.36-42. IEEE 2009.
  • [92] Kruchten P, Lago P, van Vliet H.: Building Up and Reasoning About Architectural Knowledge. QoSA2006, LNCS 4214, pp. 43-58, Springer, 2006.
  • [93] Kruchten P.: An Ontology of Architectural Design Decisions in Software-Intensive Systems. In 2nd Groningen Workshop Software Variability (October 2004). pp. 54-61.
  • [94] Kruchten P: The 4+1 View Model of Architecture. IEEE Software, Issue 6 Volume 12 pp. 42-50. IEEE 1955.
  • [95] Kruchten R: The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction, Third Edition. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley, 2004.
  • [96] Kunz W. and Rittel H. W. J.: Issues as elements of information systems. Working Paper No 131. Studiengruppe fur Systemforschung, Heidelberg, Germany, 1970.
  • [97] Lassing N., Bengtsson P., van Vliet H., Bosch J.: Experiences with ALMA: Architecture- Level Modifiability Analysis, Journal of Systems and Software, Volume 61 Issue l pp 47-57, Elservier, 2002.
  • [98] Lassing N., Rijsenbrij D., and H. van Vliet: Software Architecture Analysis of Flexibility, Complexity of Changes: Size Isn't Everything, Proc. Second Nordic Software Architecture Workshop (NOSA'99), pp. 1103-1581, 1999.
  • [99] Leffingwell D. and Widrig D.: Managing software requirements: A Use Case Approach, 2nd ed. Addison-Wesley, Boston, 2003.
  • [100] Logrippo L., Faci M., Haj-Hussein M.: ATJ introduction lo LOTOS: learning by examples. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, Volume 23, Issue 5, February 1992, pp. 325-342, Elsevier.
  • [101] Lung C., Bot S„ Kalaichelvan K., and Kazman R.: An Approach to Software Architecture Analysis for Evolution and Reusability, Proc. CASCON ,97. ACM 1997,
  • [102] Lyu M.R. (editor). Handbook of Software Reliability Engineering. Handbook of Software Reliability Engineering. McGraw-Hill, 1996. ISBN 0070394008. (available on-line http://www.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/-lyu/book/reliability/)
  • [103] Malan R., Bredemeyer D.: Less is more with minimalist architecture. IT Professional, vol. 4, No 5, pp, 48, 46- 47, IEEE 2002.
  • [104] Medvidovic N. and Taylor R.N.: A Classification and Comparison Framework for Software Architecture Description Languages. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 26, No l, pp. 70-93, January 2000.
  • [105] Medvidovic N., Rosenblum D.S., RedmilesD.F., and Robbins J.E.:. Modeling softwaren architectures in the Unified Modeling Language. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 11, 1 (January 2002).
  • [106] Molter G.: Integrating SAAM in Domain-Centric and Reuse-Based Development Processes, Proc. Second Nordic Workshop Software Architecture (NOSA L99), pp. 1103-1581, 1999.
  • [107] Murali Ch.: Mastering Software Quality Assurance: Best Practices, Tools and Technique for Software Developers. J. Ross Publishing Inc., 2011. ISBN 978-1-60427-032-7.
  • [108] Naur P and Randell B. (Eds.): Software Engineering: Report of a conference sponsored by the NATO Science Committee, Garmisch, Germany, 7-11 Oct. 1968, Brussels, Scientific Affairs Division, NATO, 1969.
  • [109] Olumofin F.G. and Misic V.B.: A holistic architecture assessment method for software product lines. Journal of Information and Software Technology. Volume 49, Issue 4, pp. 309 -323. Elsevier, 2007.
  • [110] Olumofin F.G. and Misic V.B.: Extending the ATAM Architecture Evaluation to Product Line Architectures", Technical report TR 05/02 Department of computer science, university of Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2, June 2005.
  • [111] OMG: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN). Version 2.0. Object Modeling Group, 2011.
  • [112] OMG: Systems Modeling Language (OMG SysML™), Version 1.3. Object Modelling Group 2012. (available on-line at http:// www. omg.org/spec/SysML/1.3/).
  • [113] Page-Jones M.: The practical guide to structured system design. Second Edition. Prentice Hali, 1988. ISBN-0136907695.
  • [114] Parnas D.L., Darringer J.A.: SODAS and a methodology for system design. AFIPS Fall Joint Computing Conference. pp. 449-474. ACM, 1967.
  • [115] Parnas D.L., Weiss D.M.: Active design reviews: principles and practices. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Software engineering (ICSE '85), pp. 132 -136. IEEE 1985.
  • [116] Parnas D.L.: On me Criteria To Be Used in Decomposing Systems into Modules. Commun. ACM 15(12): 1053-1058, 1972.
  • [117] Peercy D.E.: A Software Maintainability Evaluation Methodology. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol.SE-7, No 4, pp. 343- 351, July 1981.
  • [118] Perry D.E. and Wolf A.L.: Foundations for the Study of Software Architecture. ACM SIGSOFT. Software Engineering Notes vol. 17 No 4. ACM 1992.
  • [119] Pooley R.J.; Abdullatif A.A.L.: CPASA: Continuous Performance Assessment of Software Architecture. 17th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on Engineering of Computer Based Systems (ECBS), pp.79-87, IEEE 2010,
  • [120] Ramachandran P, Adve, S.Y., Bose P, Rivers J.A.: Metrics for Architecture-Level Lifetime Reliability Analysis. IEEE International Symposium on Performance Analysis of Systems and software, ISPASS 2008, pp. 202-212. IEEE 2008.
  • [121] Raildell B-and Buxton J. N. (Eds.): Software Engineering Techniques: Report of a conference sponsored by the NATO Science Committee, Rome, Italy, 27-31 Oct, 1969, Brussels, Scientific Affairs Division, NATO, 1970.
  • [122] Redwine S.T. Jr., Riddle W.E.: Software technology maturation. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Software engineering (ICSE '85), pp. 189-200. IEEE 1985.
  • [123] Reijonen V., Koskinen J., and Haikala L: Experiences from scenario-based architecture evaluations with ATAM. In Proceedings of the 4th European conference on Software architecture (ECSA'10). LNCS, vol. 6285, pp. 214-229. Springer-Verlag 2010.
  • [124] Riaz M., Mendes E„ Tempero E.: A systematic review of software maintainability prediction and metrics. In Proceedings of the 2009 3rd Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM '09), pp. 367-377. IEEE 2009.
  • [125] Roock S. and Lippert M.: Refactoring in Large Software Projects; Performing Complex Restructurings Successfully. John Wiley & Sons, 2005.
  • [126] Ross D.T. and Schoman Jr. K.E.: Structured analysis for requirements definition. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-3(1), January 1977.
  • [127] Roy B., Graham T.: Methods for Evaluating Software Architecture: A Survey. Technical Report 545. Queen's University at Kingston, Ontario, Canada, Kingston, 2008.
  • [128] Saaty T.L.: Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. RWS Publications. Pittsburgh, 2000.
  • [129] Saaty T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process; McGraw-Hill 1980.
  • [130] Sandler C., Myers O.J., Badgett T: The Art of Software Testing. Second edition. John Wiley & Sons, 2004. ISBN: 0-471-46912-2.
  • [131] Schmidt D., Stal M., Rohnert H., Buschmann R: Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture Volume 2: Patterns for Concurrent and Networked Objects. John Willey & Sons, 2000. ISBN 047160695.
  • [132] Schulmeyer G.G.: Handbook of Software Quality Assurance, Artech House Norwood, MA, USA, 2007.
  • [133] Shahin M., Liang P., Khayyambashi M.R.: Improving understandability of architecture design through visualization of architectural design decision. ICSE Workshop on Sharing and Reusing Architectural Knowledge, pp. 88-95. ACM 2010.
  • [134] Shahin M., Peng Liang, Khayyambashi M.R.: Architectural design decision: Existing models and tools. Joint Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture, 2009 & European Conference on Software Architecture. WICSA/ECSA 2009., pp. 293-296.
  • [135] Sharafi S.M.: SHADD: A scenario-based approach to software architectural defects detection. Advances in Engineering Software, vol. 45, issue l, March 2012, pp. 341-348. Elsevier, 2012.
  • [136] Simon H.A.: The Architecture of Complexity, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 106, No 6., pp. 467-482, Dec. 12, 1962.
  • [137] Smith C.U. and Williams L.G.: Performance Engineering Evaluation of Object-Oriented Systems with SPE*ED. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Performance Evaluation: Modelling Techniques and Tools, pp. 135-154. Springer-Verlag, 1997.
  • [138] Smith C.U. and Williams L.G.: Software performance antipatterns. In Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on Software and performance (WOSP '00), pp. 127-136. ACM 2000.
  • [139] Smith D., Merson P.; Using architecture evolution Proc. Fifth IEEE International Workshop on Web Site Evolution, pp. 85-92. IEEE 2003.
  • [140] Sozer H., Tekinerdogan B., Aksit M.: Extending Failure Modes and Effects Analysis Approach for Reliability Analysis at the Software Architecture Design Level. In: Architecting dependable systems IV. LNCS 4615, pp. 409-433. Springer 2007.
  • [141] Stevens W.P., Myers G.J., Constantine L.L., 1974: Structured Design. IBM Systems Journal, vol. 13, pp, 115-139.
  • [142] Suntae K., Dae-Kyoo K., Lunjin L„ Sooyong P.: Quality-driven architecture development using architectural tactics. Journal of Systems and Software, Volume 82, Issue 8, August 2009, pp. 1211-1231.Elsevier 2009.
  • [143] Szlenk M., Zalewski A., Kijas S.: Modelling architectural decisions under changing requirements. Proceedings of the Joint 10th Working Conference on Software Architecture & 6th European Conference on Software Architecture, pp. 211-214. IEEE Computer Society (2012).
  • [144] Tang A., Avgeriou P,, Jansen A., Capilla R., and Babar M,A.: A comparative study of architecture knowledge management tools. Journal of Systems and Software. Vol. 83, Issue 3, pp. 352-370. Elsevier, 2010.
  • [145] Tang A., Kuo F.-C., Lau M.F., 2008. Towards Independent Software Architecture Review. LNCS, Volume 5292, pp. 306-313. Springer-Verlag 2008.
  • [146] Tekinerdogan B. and Sozer H., 2012: Variability viewpoint for introducing variability in software architecture viewpoints. In Proceedings of the WICSA/ECSA 2012, pp. 163-166. ACM, New York, NY, USA.
  • [147] Tekinerdogan B., Scholten F„ Hofmann Ch., Aksit M,; Concern-oriented analysis and refactoring of software architectures using dependency structure matrices. In Proceedings of the 15th workshop on Early aspects (EA '09), pp. 13-18,. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2009.
  • [148] Tekinerdogan B., Sozer H., Aksit M.: Software architecture reliability analysis using failure scenarios. Journal of Systems and Software, Volume 81, Issue 4, April 2008, pp. 558-575. Elsevier 2008.
  • [149] Tekinerdogan B.: ASAAM; aspectual software architecture analysis method. Proceedings of Fourth Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA 2004), pp. 5-14. IEEE, 2004.
  • [150] The Open Group: ArchiMate® 2.0 Specification. 2009-2012 The Open Group. Availabte online. The Open Group 2012.
  • [151] The Open Group: The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF®) Version 9.1, Available on-line at http://pubs. opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/.
  • [152] Tyree J., Akerman A.: Architecture Decisions: Demystifying Architecture. IEEE Software, Mar,-Apr, 2005, pp. 19-27.
  • [153] van Heesch U., Avgeriou P, Hilliard R.: Forces on Architecture Decisions – A Viewpoint. Joint Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA) and European Conference on Software Architecture (ECSA), pp. 101-110. IEEE 2012.
  • [154] van Heesch U., Avgeriou P., Hilliard R.: A documentation framework for architecture decisions. Journal of Systems and Software, Volume 85, Issue 4, pp. 795-820. Elsevier, 2012.
  • [155] Williams L., Smith C.: PASASM: A Method for the Performance Assessment of Software Architectures. Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Software and performance (WOSP'02), pp, 179-189.ACM,2002.
  • [156] Wirth N., 2008, A Brief History of Software Engineering, Annals of the History of Computing, IEEE, vol. 30, No 3, pp. 32-39, July-Sept. 2008.
  • [157] Woods E.: Industrial Architectural Assessment Using TARA. 9th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA’11), pp. 56-65. IEEE, 2011.
  • [158] Woods E.: Industrial architectural assessment using TARA. Journal of Systems and Software, Volume 85, Issue 9, September 2012, pp. 2034-2047. Elsevier 2012.
  • [159] Yacoub S.M., Ammar H.H.; A methodology for architecture-1evel reliability risk analysis. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 28, No 6, pp. 529-547. IEEE 2002.
  • [160] Yen J, Langari R.: Fuzzy logic: intelligence, control, and information. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1999.
  • [161] Yourdon E., Constantine, L., 1979. Structured Design: Fundamentals of a Discipline of Computer Program and Systems Design. Prentice Hali, 1979. ISBN 0138544719.
  • [162] Yourdon E.: Modern Structured Analysis. Prentice Hali, 1988. ISBN 0135986249. (Polish edition also available)
  • [163] Zachman J.A., 1987. Framework for Information Systems Architecture. IBM Systems Journal, vol. 26, No 3, pp. 276-292, 1987.
  • [164] Zadeh L.A.: Fuzzy sets, Information and Control, Volume 8, Issue 3, June 1965, pp. 338-353. Elsevier 1965.
  • [165] Zalewski A, and Kijas S.: Feature-Based Architecture Reviews, ISAT 2012. Information Systems Architecture and Technology. Networks Design and Analysis. Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Wrocławskiej, Wrocław 2012, ISBN 978-83-7493-702-3. pp. 81-96, 2012.
  • [166] Zalewski A. and Kijas S.: Towards me Competitive Software Development. 12th Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement, PROFES201I. LNCS, vol, 6759, pp. 103-112. Springer-Verlag 2011.
  • [167] Zalewski A., Kijas S., Sokołowska D.: Capturing Architecture Evolution with Maps of Architectural Decisions 2.0. ECSA 2011, Essen, Germany. LNCS, Volume 6903, pp. 83-96. Springer-Verlag2011.
  • [168] Zalewski A., Kijas S.: Architecture Decision-Making in Support of Complexity Control. Software Architecture, 4th European Conference, ECSA 2010, Copenhagen, Denmark, August 23-26, 2010, Proceedings. LNCS, vol. 6285, pp. 501-504. Springer-Verlag 2010.
  • [169] Zalewski A., Kijas S.: Beyond ATAM: Early Architecture Evaluation Method for Large-Scale Distributed Systems. Journal of Systems and Software. Journal of Systems and Software, Volume 86, Issue 3, March 2013, pp. 683-697. Elsevier 2013.
  • [170] Zalewski A., Ludzia M,; Diagrammatic Modeling of Architectural Decisions. Software Architecture, Second European Conference, ECSA 2008 Paphos, Cyprus, September 29-1 October, 2008 Proceedings, LNCS, vol. 5292, pp. 350-353. Springer-Verlag 2008.
  • [171] Zalewski A.: Beyond ATAM: Architecture Analysis in the Development of Large Scale Software Systems. Software Architecture, First European Conference, ECSA 2007 Aranjuez, Spain, September 24-26, 2007 Proceedings. LNCS, vol. 4758, pp 92-105. Springer-Verlag 2007.
  • [172] Zimmermann O., Koehler J., Leymann F„ Polley R., SchusterN.; Managing architectural decision models with dependency relations, integrity constraints, and production rules. Journal of Systems and Software, Volume 82, Issue 8, pp. 1249-1267. Springer 2009.
  • [173] Zimroermann O., Zdun U., Gschwind T., Leymann F.: Combining Pattern Languages and Reusable Architectural Decision Models into a Comprehensive and Comprehensible Design Method. W1CSA 2008, pp. 157-166, 18-21 Feb. 2008, IEEE 2008.
Typ dokumentu
Bibliografia
Identyfikator YADDA
bwmeta1.element.baztech-bf6e792a-7ee1-4710-9767-baecb0b10786
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.