Advertisement

Migration from COBOL to SOA: Measuring the Impact on Web Services Interfaces Complexity

  • Cristian Mateos
  • Alejandro Zunino
  • Sanjay Misra
  • Diego Anabalon
  • Andres Flores
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 756)

Abstract

SOA and Web Services allow to easily expose business functions to build larger distributed systems. However, legacy systems – mostly in COBOL – are left aside unless applying a migration approach. Main approaches are: direct and indirect migration. The former implies to wrap COBOL programs with a thin layer of a Web Service oriented language/platform. The latter needs reengineering COBOL functions to a modern language/platform. In a previous work, we presented an intermediate approach based on direct migration where developed Web Services are later refactored to improve their interfaces quality. Refactorings mainly capture good practices inherent to indirect migration. In this paper, we measure the complexity of Web Services’ interfaces generated by the three approaches. Both comprehension and interoperability can be affected according to the service interface complexity level. We apply a metric suite (by Baski & Misra) to measure complexity on services interfaces – i.e., WSDL documents. Migrations of two real COBOL systems upon the three approaches were compared on the complexity level of the generated WSDL documents.

Keywords

Legacy system migration Service-oriented architecture Web services Direct migration Indirect migration WSDL complexity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by PIP 2013-2015 GI code 11220120100185CO (CONICET).

References

  1. 1.
    Almonaies, A., Cordy, J., Dean, T.: Legacy system evolution towards service-oriented architecture. In: SOAME, pp. 53–62 (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baski, D., Misra, S.: Metrics suite for maintainability of extensible markup language web services. IET Softw. 5(3), 320–341 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Canfora, G., Fasolino, A., Frattolillo, G., Tramontana, P.: A wrapping approach for migrating legacy system interactive functionalities to service oriented architectures. J. Syst. Softw. 81(4), 463–480 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chidamber, S., Kemerer, C.: A metrics suite for object oriented design. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 20(6), 476–493 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chung, S., An, J., Davalos, S.: Service-oriented software reengineering: SoSR. In: Proceedings of the 40th IEEE HICSS, pp. 172c (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cuadrado, F., Garcia, B., Dueñas, J., Parada, H.: A case study on software evolution towards service-oriented architecture. In: Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE AINA, pp. 1399–1404 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fowler, M., Beck, K., Brant, J., Opdyke, W., Roberts, D.: Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code. Addison-Wesley Professional, Massachusetts (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kruchten, P.: The 4 + 1 view model of architecture. IEEE Softw. 12(6), 42–50 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mateos, C., Zunino, A., Misra, S., Anabalon, D., Flores, A.: Keeping web service interface complexity low using an OO metric-based early approach. In: Proceedings of the 42nd CLEI, pp. 1–12 (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Millard, D., Howard, Y., Chennupati, S., Davis, H., Jam, E., Gilbert, L., Wills, G.: Design patterns for wrapping similar legacy systems with common service interfaces. In: ECOWS (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    O’Brien, L., Smith, D., Lewis, G.: Supporting migration to services using software architecture reconstruction. In: Proceedings of the 13th IEEE STEP, pp. 81–91 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ordiales Coscia, J., Mateos, C., Crasso, M., Zunino, A.: Refactoring code-first web services for early avoiding WSDL anti-patterns: approach and comprehensive assessment. Sci. Comput. Program. 89(Part C), 374–407 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rodriguez, J., Crasso, M., Mateos, C., Zunino, A., Campo, M.: Bottom-up and top-down cobol system migration to web services. IEEE Internet Comput. 17(2), 44–51 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rodriguez, J., Crasso, M., Mateos, C., Zunino, A., Campo, M., Salvatierra, G.: The SOA frontier: experiences with 3 migration approaches. In: Migrating Legacy Applications: Challenges in Service Oriented Architecture and Cloud Computing Environments, pp. 26–152. IGI Global (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smith, D.: Migration of legacy assets to service-oriented architecture environments. In: Proceedings of the 29th ICSE, pp. 174–175. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sneed, H.: Wrapping legacy software for reuse in a SOA. In: Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik, vol. 2, pp. 345–360. GITO-Verlag, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zillmann, C., Winter, A., Herget, A., Teppe, W., Theurer, M., Fuhr, A., Horn, T., Riediger, V., Erdmenger, U., Kaiser, U., Uhlig, D., Zimmermann, Y.: The SOAMIG process model in industrial applications. In: Proceedings of the 15th CSMR, pp. 339–342. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cristian Mateos
    • 1
    • 4
  • Alejandro Zunino
    • 1
    • 4
  • Sanjay Misra
    • 2
  • Diego Anabalon
    • 3
    • 4
  • Andres Flores
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.ISISTAN-UNICEN-CONICET Research InstituteTandilArgentina
  2. 2.Covenant UniversityOtaNigeria
  3. 3.GIISCO Research GroupNational University of ComahueNeuquénArgentina
  4. 4.CONICET, National Scientific and Technical Research CouncilBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations