Abstract
If you are just a researcher to software, maybe it is enough when you finish describing architecture or communicate with other guys involved in software development. However, it is mandatory to figure out whether the architecture will lead a success. After all, nobody will reject to improve the chance of win before taking a bet, normally with a great fortune in terms of millions of dollars as well as company’ s reputation and future. Therefore, evaluation is necessary, appearing as a bridge between architecture and software engineering’s ultimate goals.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Abowd, G., et al. Recommended Best Industrial Practice for Software Architecture Evaluation, Techincal Report, CMU/SEI-96-TR-025, 1997.
Allen, R. & Garlan, D. A Formal Basis for Architectural Connection. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 1997 (6): 213–249.
Asundi, J., Kazman, R. & Klein, M. Using Economic Considerations to Choose among Architecture Design Alternatives, Techincal Report, CMU/SEI-2001-TR-035, 2001.
Babar, M. A. & Gorton, I. Comparison of Scenario-Based Software Architecture Evaluation Methods. In: Software Engineering Conference, 2004. 11th Asia-Pacific, p p. 600–607.2004.
Bachmann, F., Bass, L. & Klein, M. Preliminary-Design of Arche: A Software Architecture Design Assistant, Techincal Report, CMU/ SEI-2003-TR-021, 2003.
Barbacci, M., et al. Steps in an Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Mehtod: Quality Attribute Models and Analysis, Techincal Report, CMU/ SEI-97-TR-029, 1998.
Bass, L., Clements, P. & Kazman, R. Software Architecture in Practice, 1st ed.: Addison Wesley/Pearson 1998d.
Bass, L., Clements, P. & Kazman, R. Software Architecture in Practice, 2nd ed.: Addison Wesley/Pearson 2003.
Bengtsson, P. & Bosch, J. Scenario-Based Software Architecture Reengineering. Proceedings Fifth International Conference on Software Reuse, Victoria, BC, Canada.1998:308–317.
Bengtsson, P. & Bosch, J. Architecture Level Prediction of Software Maintenance. Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 1999: 139–147.
Boehm, B., Brown, J. & Lipow, M. Quantitative Evaluation of Software Quality. Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on software engineering; San Francisco, California, United States.1976:592–605.
Boehm, B. A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 1986(11): 14–24.
Bot, S., Lung, C. H. & Farrell, M. A Stakeholder-Centric Software Architecture Analysis. Approach Joint proceedings of the second international software architecture workshop (ISAW-2), San Francisco, California, United States.1996:152–154.
Brown, W., et al. Antipatterns: RefactoringSoftware, Architectures, and Projects in Crisis. New York: John Wiley & Sons.1998.
Chidamber, S. R. & Kemerer, C. F. Towards a Metrics Suite for Object Oriented Design. Conference proceedings on Object-oriented programming systems, languages, and applications. Phoenix, Arizona, United States.1991:197–211.
Clements, P. Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs, Techincal Report, CMU/SEI-2000-TN-009 2000.
Clements, P., Kazman, R. & Klein, M. Evaluating Software Architectures: Methods and Case Studies. Pearson Education.2003.
Dobrica, L. & Niemela, E. A Survey on Software Architecture Analysis Methods. Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on 2002(28): 638–653.
Duenas, J. C., de Oliveira, W. L. & de ia Puente, J. A. A Software Architecture Evaluation Model. In: Development and Evolution of Software Architectures for Product Families. Second International ESPIRIT ARES Workshop. Proceedings (van der Linden, F., ed., pp. 148–157. Springer-Verlag, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.1998.
IEEE. IEEE Standard Dictionary of Measures to Produce Reliable Software. 1989a.
IEEE. IEEE Guide for the Use of IEEE Standard Dictionary of Measures to Produce Reliable Software.1989b.
IEEE. IEEE Standard for a Software Quality Metrics Methodology. 1998.
Inverardi, P., Wolf, A. L. & Yankelevich, D. Static Checking of System Behaviors Using Derived Component Assumptions. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 2000(9): 239–272.
Kazman, R., et al. Saam: A Method for Analyzing the Properties of Software Architectures. Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Software Engineering, Sorrento, Italy.1994:81–90.
Kazman, R. Tool Support for Architecture Analysis and Design. In: Joint proceedings of the second international software architecture workshop (ISAW-2) and international workshop on multiple perspectives in software development (Viewpoints’ 96) on SIGSOFT’ 96 workshops pp. 94–97. ACM Press San Francisco, California, United States 1996a.
Kazman, R., et al. Scenario-Based Analysis of Software Architecture. Software, IEEE 1996b(13): 47–55.
Kazman, R., et al. The Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method. Proceedings Fourth IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems. ICECCS’ 98, Monterey, CA, USA.1998:68–78.
Kazman, R., et al. Experience with Performing Architecture Tradeoff Analysis. Proceedings of the 1999 International Conference on Software Engineering. Acm. 1999.
Kazman, R., Carriére, S. J. & Woods, S. G. Toward a Discipline of Scenario-Based Architectural Engineering. Annals Of Software Engineering 2000(9): 5–33
Kazman, R., Asundi, J. & Klein, M. Making Architecture Design Decisions: An Economic Approach, Techincal Report, CMU/SEI-2001-TR-035, 2001a.
Kazman, R., Asundi, J. & Klein, M. Quantifying the Costs and Benefits of Architectural Decisions 2001b:297–306.
Klein, M., et al. A Practitioner’s Handbook for Real-Time Analysis. Norwell, MA, USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.1993.
Liathi, J., et al. Performance Bounds for Distributed Systems with Workload Variabilities and Uncertainties. Parallel Computing 1997 (22): 1789–1806.
Lassing, N., Rijsenbrij, D. & Viliet, H. On Software Architecture Analysis of Flexibility, Complexity of Changes: Size Isn’t Everything. Proceeding of the Second Nordic Software Architecture Workshop (NOSA’99). 1999:1103–1581.
Li, W. & Henry, S. Object-Oriented Metrics That Predict Maintainability. Journal of Systems and Software 1993(23): 111–122.
Lung C. H., et al. An Approach to Software Architecture Analysis for Evolution and Reusability In: Proceedings of the 1997 conference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative research, CASCON’ 97, pp. 15–26. IBM Press, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.1997.
Maheshwari, P. & Teoh, A. Supporting Atam with a Collaborative Web-Based Software Architecture Evaluation Tool. Science of Computer Programming 2005(57): 109–128.
Majumdar, S., et al. Performance Bounds for Concurrent Software with Rendezvous. Performance Evaluation 1991(13): 207–236.
Marco, A. D. & Inverardi, P. Compositional Generation of Software Architecture Performance Qn Models. Proceedings. on the Fourth Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA 2004), Oslo, Norway.2004:37–46.
Molter, G. Integrating Saam in Domain-Centric and Reuse-Based Development Processes. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Nordic Workshop on Software Architecture, Ronneby, Sweden.1999.
Parnas, D. L. & Weiss, D. M. Active Design Reviews: Principles and Practice. Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Software engineering Longdon, England.1985:132–136.
Smith, C. U. & Williams, L. G. Software Performance Antipatterns. Proceedings of WOSP2000: Second International Workshop on Software and Performance, Ottawa, Ont., Canada.2000:127–136.
Smith, C. U. & Williams, L. G. Performance Solutions: A Practical Guide to Creating Responsive, Scalable Software: Addison-Wesley.2001.
Uchitel, S., Kramer, J. & Magee, J. Behaviour Model Elaboration Using Partial Labelled Transition Systems. Proceedings of the 9th European software engineering conference held jointly with l lth ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of software engineering Helsinki, Finland.2003:19–27.
Williams, L. G. & Smith, C. U. Pasa: An Architectural Approach to Fixing Software Performance Problems. In: Proc. of Int. Conference of the Computer Measurement Group, Reno, USA.2002a.
Williams, L. G. & Smith, C. U. Pasa: A Method for the Performance Assessment of Software Architecture. In: Proc. of the 3rd Workshop on Software Performance, Rome, Italy.2002b.
Zhang, B., Ding, K. & Li, J. An Xml-Message Based Architecture Description Language and Architectural Mismatch Checking, Proceedings of the 25th International Computer Software and Applications Conference on Invigorating Software Development (COMPSAC 2001), Beijing, China. 2001: 561–566.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Zhejiang University Press, Hangzhou and Springer-Verlag GmbH Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2008). Evaluating Software Architecture. In: Software Architecture. Advanced Topics in Science and Technology in China. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74343-9_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74343-9_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-74342-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-74343-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)