Comprehensive Architecture Evaluation and Management in Large Software-Systems

  • Frank Salger
  • Marcel Bennicke
  • Gregor Engels
  • Claus Lewerentz
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5281)

Abstract

The architecture of a software system is both a success and a failure factor. Taking the wrong architectural decisions may break a project, since such errors are often systematic and affect cross-cutting aspects of the system to be built. Moreover, software projects get more and more challenging due to the rising complexity and dynamics of business processes, large team size and distributed development. As the software architecture is the common platform for many project activities, it constitutes a critical success factor. Thus, a comprehensive method for evaluating a software architecture and propagating important properties of it downstream to code is needed. At sd&m, we designed a comprehensive architecture evaluation and management framework in order to satisfy these needs. In this paper, we derive a list of requirements, such a framework should fulfill. We then present the components of our architecture evaluation method and demonstrate, how it fulfills these requirements.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Clements, P., Kazman, R., Klein, M.: Evaluating Software Architectures Methods and Case Studies. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rational Unified Process. IBM Coporation. Version 7.0.1. 2000 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fagan, M.: Advances in Software Inspections. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 12(7), 744–751 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    ISO/IEC 15504-2:2003(E). Software engineering — Process assessment — Part 2: Performing an assessment Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    IEEE Std. 1028-1997 – Standard for Software Reviews. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. New York (1997) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gilb, T., Graham, D.: Software Inspection. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1993)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wiegers, K.E.: Peer Reviews in Software – A Practical Guide. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    CMMI® for Development, Version 1.2. CMU/SEI-2006-TR-008, ESC-TR-2006-008. Carnegie Mellon, Software Engineering Institute (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ISO/IEC 15504-5:2006(E). Information technology — Process assessment — Part 5: An exemplar process assessment model Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ISO/IEC 9126-1:2001(E). Software Engineering — Product Quality — Part 1: Quality Model Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haft, M., Humm, B., Siedersleben, J.: The Architect’s Dilemma – Will Reference Architectures Help? In: Reussner, R., Mayer, J., Stafford, J.A., Overhage, S., Becker, S., Schroeder, P.J. (eds.) QoSA 2005 and SOQUA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3712. pp. 106–122. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Conway, M.: How Do Committees Invent? Datamation 14(4), 28–31 (1968)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parnas, D.L.: On the Criteria To Be Used in Decomposing Systems into Modules. CACM 15(12), 1053–1058 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lakos, J.: Large-Scale C++ Software Design. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Murphy, G.C., Notkin, D., Sullivan, K.: Software Reflexion Models. Bridging the Gap Between Source and High-Level Models. In: Proc. of the Third ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, pp. 18–28. ACM Press, New York (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koschke, R., Simon, D.: Hierarchical Reflexion Models. In: Proc. of 10th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering (WCRE 2003), pp. 36–45. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sangal, N., Jordan, E., Sinha, V., Jackson, D.: Using Dependency Models to Manage Complex Software Architecture. In: Proceedings of the 20th annual ACM SIGPLAN conference on object oriented programming, systems, languages, and applications, OOPSLA 2005, pp. 167–176. ACM Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    SonarJ vendor homepage, http://www.hello2morrow.com
  19. 19.
    SotoArc vendor homepage, http://www.software-tomography.com
  20. 20.
    Becker-Pechau, P., Bennicke, M.: Concepts of Modeling Architectural Module Views for Consistency Checks Based on Architectural Styles. In: Smith, J. (ed.) Proc. of the 11th IASTED International Conference on Software Engineering and Applications (SEA 2007). Acta Press (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank Salger
    • 1
  • Marcel Bennicke
    • 2
  • Gregor Engels
    • 1
    • 3
  • Claus Lewerentz
    • 2
  1. 1.sd&m AGMünchenGermany
  2. 2.Brandenburg University of TechnologyCottbusGermany
  3. 3.University of Paderborn, s-labPaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations