Advertisement

Goal-Oriented Performance Analysis of Reusable Software Components

  • Ronny Kolb
  • Dharmalingam Ganesan
  • Dirk Muthig
  • Masanori Kagino
  • Hideharu Teranishi
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4039)

Abstract

To establish software reuse successfully in the long run, it is crucial for providers of reusable components to continuously react on problems or future trends arising around their component. In practice, however, many providers of reusable components are not able to do so due to insufficient feedback and details from reusers. Additionally, they often have too little knowledge on system context and constraints that may lead to major deficits of the reusable component especially with respect to non-functional aspects. This paper presents an approach for systematically engineering performance of reusable components that has been validated in an industrial context.

Keywords

Software Product Line Usage Scenario User Interface Component Product Team Reusable Component 
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.
    Atkinson, C., et al.: Component-based Product Line Engineering with UML. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basili, V.R., Caldera, G., Rombach, H.D.: Goal Question Metric Paradigm. In: Marciniak, J.J. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, vol. 1, pp. 528–532. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Basili, V.R., Rombach, D.: Support for Comprehensive Reuse. IEEE Software Engineering Journal 6(5) (1991)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clements, P., Northrop, L.M.: Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ganesan, D., Maurer, U., Ochs, M., Snoek, B., Verlage, M.: Towards Testing Response Time of Instances of a Web-based Product Line. In: Proceedings of International Workshop on Software Product Line Testing (SPLiT 2005), Rennes, France, September 2005, pp. 23–34 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Metz, E., Lencevicius, R.: Efficient Instrumentation for Performance Profiling. In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Dynamic Analysis (WODA), pp. 143–148 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Metz, E., Lencevicius, R.: A Performance Analysis Tool for Nokia Mobile Phone Software. In: Ronsse, M., De Bosschere, K. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Automated Debugging (AADEBUG 2003) (September 2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reiss, S., Renieris, M.: Encoding Program Executions. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sitaraman, M., Kulczycki, G., Krone, J., Ogden, W., Reddy, A.: Performance Specification of Software Components. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Software Reuse (SSR 2001), ACM/SIGSOFT, May 2001, pp. 3–10 (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stewart, D.: Measuring Execution Time and Real-Time Performance. In: Embedded Systems Conference (ESC 2001) (Spring 2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yacoub, S.: Performance Analysis of Component-Based Applications. In: Chastek, G.J. (ed.) SPLC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2379, pp. 299–315. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronny Kolb
    • 1
  • Dharmalingam Ganesan
    • 1
  • Dirk Muthig
    • 1
  • Masanori Kagino
    • 2
  • Hideharu Teranishi
    • 2
  1. 1.Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental, Software Engineering (IESE)KaiserslauternGermany
  2. 2.Ricoh Company, Ltd.Minatoku, TokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations