A QoS Driven Development Process Model for Component-Based Software Systems

  • Heiko Koziolek
  • Jens Happe
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4063)


Non-functional specifications of software components are considered an important asset in constructing dependable systems, since they enable early Quality of Service (QoS) evaluations. Several approaches for the QoS analysis of component-based software architectures have been introduced. However, most of these approaches do not consider the integration into the development process sufficiently. For example, they envision a pure bottom-up development or neglect that system architects do not have complete information for QoS analyses at their disposal. We extent an existing component-based development process model by Cheesman and Daniels to explicitly include early, model-based QoS analyses. Besides the system architect, we describe further involved roles. Exemplary for the performance domain, we analyse what information these roles can provide to construct a performance model of a software architecture.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bertolino, A., Mirandola, R.: CB-SPE Tool: Putting Component-Based Performance Engineering into Practice. In: Crnković, I., Stafford, J.A., Schmidt, H.W., Wallnau, K. (eds.) CBSE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3054, pp. 233–248. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cheesman, J., Daniels, J.: UML Components: A Simple Process for Specifying Component-based Software Systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grunske, L., Kaiser, B., Papadopoulos, Y.: Model-Driven Safety Evaluation with State-Event-Based Component Failure annotations. In: Heineman, G.T., Crnković, I., Schmidt, H.W., Stafford, J.A., Szyperski, C.A., Wallnau, K. (eds.) CBSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3489, pp. 33–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hamlet, D., Mason, D., Woit, D.: Properties of Software Systems Synthesized from Components. Case Studies, vol. 1, pp. 129–159. World Scientific Publishing Company, Singapore (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hissam, S.A., Moreno, G.A., Stafford, J.A., Wallnau, K.C.: Packaging Predictable Assembly. In: Bishop, J.M. (ed.) CD 2002. LNCS, vol. 2370, pp. 108–124. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Object Management Group OMG. UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance and Time (2005),
  7. 7.
    Reussner, R.H., Poernomo, I.H., Schmidt, H.W.: Reasoning on Software Architectures with Contractually Specified Components. In: Cechich, A., Piattini, M., Vallecillo, A. (eds.) Component-Based Software Quality. LNCS, vol. 2693, pp. 287–325. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reussner, R.H., Schmidt, H.W., Poernomo, I.H.: Reliability Prediction for Component-Based Software Architectures. Journal of Systems and Software 66(3), 241–252 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shukla, R.Y., Strooper, P.A., Carrington, D.A.: A Framework for Reliability Assessment of Software Components. In: Crnković, I., Stafford, J.A., Schmidt, H.W., Wallnau, K. (eds.) CBSE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3054, pp. 272–279. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Szyperski, C., Gruntz, D., Murer, S.: Component Software: Beyond Object-Oriented Programming. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heiko Koziolek
    • 1
  • Jens Happe
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School TrustsoftUniversity of OldenburgGermany

Personalised recommendations