Advertisement

Middleware Architecture Evaluation for Dependable Self-managing Systems

  • Yan Liu
  • Muhammad Ali Babar
  • Ian Gorton
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5281)

Abstract

Middleware provides infrastructure support for creating dependable software systems. A specific middleware implementation plays a critical role in determining the quality attributes that satisfy a system’s dependability requirements. Evaluating a middleware architecture at an early development stage can help to pinpoint critical architectural challenges and optimize design decisions. In this paper, we present a method and its application to evaluate middleware architectures, driven by emerging architecture patterns for developing self-managing systems. Our approach focuses on two key attributes of dependability, reliability and maintainability by means of fault tolerance and fault prevention. We identify the architectural design patterns necessary to build an adaptive self-managing architecture that is capable of preventing or recovering from failures. These architectural patterns and their impacts on quality attributes create the context for middleware evaluation. Our approach is demonstrated by an example application – failover control of a financial application on an enterprise service bus.

Keywords

Quality Attribute Design Pattern Autonomic Computing Test Data Generator Policy Decision Point 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A Primer on Policy-based Network Management, Hewlett-Packard Company (1999), http://www.openview.hp.com/Uploads/primer_on_policy-based_network_mgmt.pdf
  2. 2.
    Ali Babar, M., Gorton, I.: Comparison of Scenario-Based Software Architecture Evaluation Methods. In: 11th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, pp. 600–607 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Avizienis, A., Laprie, J.C., Randell, B., Landwehr, C.: Basic Concepts and Taxonomy of Dependable and Secure Computing. IEEE Transactions on dependable and secure computing 1(1), 11–33 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bass, L., Nord, R., Wood, W., Zubrow, D.: Risk Themes Discovered through Architecture Evaluations. In: Proceedings of the Sixth Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture WICSA, vol. 1. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bosch, J., Bengtsson, P.: Assessing Optimal Software Architecture Maintainability. In: Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR), vol. 168. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buschmann, F., Meunier, R., Rohnert, H., Sommerlad, P., Stal, M.: Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture: A System of Patterns. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chiu, R.: Enhance the Adaptivity of Integrated Services in SOA, Undergraduate Thesis, University of New South Wales, Australia (October 2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cronbach, L.J.: Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 297–333 (1951)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hohpe, G., Woolf, B.: Enterprise Integration Patterns: Designing, Building, and Deploying Messaging Solutions. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    IBM online article, An architectural blueprint for autonomic computing, (October 2004), http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/autonomic/library/ac-summary/ac-blue.html
  11. 11.
    Kramer, J., Magee, J.: Self-Managed Systems: an Architectural Challenge. In: 2007 Future of Software Engineering. ICSE, pp. 259–268. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liu, Y., Gorton, I., Bass, L., Hoang, C., Abanmi, S.: MEMS: A Method for Evaluating Middleware Architectures. In: Hofmeister, C., Crnković, I., Reussner, R. (eds.) QoSA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4214. pp. 9–26. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liu, Y., Gorton, I.: Implementing Adaptive Performance Management in Server Applications. In: International Workshop on Software Engineering For Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS 2007), ICSE, pp. 12–21. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Martin, P., Powley, W., Wilson, K., Tian, W., Xu, T., Zebedee, J.: The WSDM of Autonomic Computing: Experiences in Implementing Autonomic Web Services. In: International Workshop on Software Engineering For Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS 2007), ICSE, pp. 9–18. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    Srivastava, B., Bigus, J.P., Schlosnagle, D.A.: Bringing Planning to Autonomic Applications with ABLE. In: Proceedings of the First international Conference on Autonomic Computing (ICAC 2004), pp. 154–161. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yacoub, S.M., Ammar, H.: A Methodology for Architecture-Level Reliability Risk Analysis. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 28(6), 529–547 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    White, S.R., Hanson, J.E., Whalley, I., Chess, D.M., Segal, A., Kephart, J.O.: Autonomic computing: Architectural approach and prototype. Integr. Comput.-Aided Eng. 13(2), 173–188 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yan Liu
    • 1
  • Muhammad Ali Babar
    • 2
  • Ian Gorton
    • 3
  1. 1.National ICT AustraliaAustralia
  2. 2.Lero, the Irish Software Engineering CentreUniversity of LimerickIreland
  3. 3.Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryUSA

Personalised recommendations