Advertisement

Tailoring the ATAM for Software Ecosystems

  • Simone da Silva AmorimEmail author
  • John D. McGregor
  • Eduardo Santana de Almeida
  • Christina von Flach G. Chavez
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9278)

Abstract

Software ecosystems often form around a platform which is defined by a reference architecture. None of the existing architecture evaluation methods evaluate the unique aspects of the architectures that drive a software ecosystem. These architectures emphasize properties, such as Extensibility, Flexibility, and Scalability, that should be considered during an architecture evaluation. An evaluation method must also allow stakeholders, who are spread around the world, to participate in the evaluation. To address these issues, this paper proposes a method, Architectural Analysis Method for Evolving Ecosystems (AAMEE), to evaluate the architecture that is the basis for a software ecosystem. AAMEE, a variant of ATAM, analyzes architectural scenarios covering both the platform and product architectures in the ecosystem. The method has been piloted through its application to the architecture of the Noosfero ecosystem. We report some lessons learned.

Keywords

Software ecosystems Software architecture Architectural evaluation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Amorim, S.d.S., de Almeida, E.S., McGregor, J.D.: Extensibility in ecosystem architectures: an initial study. In: Proceedings of the 2013 International Workshop on Ecosystem Architectures, WEA 2013, pp. 11–15, August 2013Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amorim, S.d.S., de Almeida, E.S., McGregor, J.D.: Scalability of ecosystem architectures. In: Proceedings of the 11th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture, WICSA 2014, pp. 49–52, April 2014Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amorim, S.d.S., de Almeida, E.S., McGregor, J.D., Chavez, C.v.F.G.: Flexibility in ecosystem architectures. In: Proceedings of the 2014 European Conference on Software Architecture Workshops, ECSAW 2014, pp. 14:1–14:6 (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bengtsson, P., Lassing, N., Bosch, J., van Vliet, H.: Architecture-level modifiability analysis (ALMA). Journal of Systems and Software 69, 129–141 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buschmann, F., Meunier, R., Rohnert, H., Stal, M.: vol. 1. Wiley (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Graaf, B., Van Dijk, H., Van Deursen, A.: Evaluating an embedded software reference architecture. In: Proceedings of the Ninth European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering, CSMMR 2005, pp. 354–363, March 2005Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jansen, S., Finkelstein, A., Brinkkemper, S.: A sense of community: a research agenda for software ecosystems. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Volume, ICSE 2009, pp. 187–190, May 2009Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jansen, S.: How quality attributes of software platform architectures influence software ecosystems. In: Proceedings of the 2013 International Workshop on Ecosystem Architectures, WEA 2013, pp. 6–10 (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kazman, R., Klein, M., Barbacci, M., Longstaff, T., Lipson, H., Carriere, J.: The architecture tradeoff analysis method. In: Proceedings of the Fourth IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems, ICECCS 1998, pp. 68–78, August 1998Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Knodel, J., Naab, M.: Software architecture evaluation in practice - retrospective on more than 50 architecture evaluations in industry. In: Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture, WICSA 2014, pp. 115–124, April 2014Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Naab, N., Stammel, J.: Architectural flexibility in a software-systems life-cycle: systematic construction and exploitation of flexibility. In: Proceedings of the 8th international ACM SIGSOFT conference on Quality of Software Architectures, QoSA 2012, pp. 13–22, June 2012Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ram, N.S., Rodrigues, P.: Enhanced quantitative trade-off analysis in quality attributes of a software architecture using bayesian network model. JDCA 3(4)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Taylor, R.N., Medvidovic, N., Dashofy, E.M.: Wiley, January 2009Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simone da Silva Amorim
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  • John D. McGregor
    • 2
  • Eduardo Santana de Almeida
    • 3
    • 4
  • Christina von Flach G. Chavez
    • 4
  1. 1.Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology of BahiaSalvadorBrazil
  2. 2.Clemson UniversityClemsonUSA
  3. 3.Fraunhofer Project Center for Software & Systems EngineeringFederal University of BahiaSalvadorBrazil
  4. 4.Federal University of BahiaSalvadorBrazil

Personalised recommendations