Advertisement

Analysis of Data-Flow Complexity and Architectural Implications

Chapter

Abstract

Service orchestrations are frequently used to assemble software components along business processes. Despite much research and empirical studies into the use of control-flow structures of these specialized languages, like BPEL and BPMN2, no empirical evaluation of data-flow structures and languages, like XPath, XSLT, and XQuery, has been made yet. This paper presents a case study on the use of data transformation languages in industry projects in different companies and across different domains, thereby showing that data flow is an important and complex property of such orchestrations. The results also show that proprietary extensions are used frequently and that the design favors the use of modules, which allows for reusing and testing code. This case study is a starting point for further research into the data-flow dimension of service orchestrations and gives insights into practical problems that future standards and theories can rely on.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    V.R. Basili, Applying the goal/question/metric paradigm in the experience factory, in Software Quality Assurance and Measurement: A Worldwide Perspective, vol. 7, no.4 (Chapman and Hall, London, 1995), pp. 21–44Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    W. Berli, D. Lübke, W. Möckli, Terravis – large scale business process integration between public and private partners, in Lecture Notes in Informatics (LNI), ed. by E. Plödereder, L. Grunske, E. Schneider, D. Ull. Proceedings INFORMATIK 2014, vol. P-232 (Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V., Bonn, 2014), pp. 1075–1090Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Cardoso, Complexity analysis of BPEL web processes. Softw. Process Improv. Pract. J. 12, 35–49 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Cardoso, Process control-flow complexity metric: an empirical validation, in IEEE International Conference on Services Computing, 2006. SCC’06 (IEEE, Piscataway, 2006), pp. 167–173Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Cardoso, About the data-flow complexity of web processes, in 6th International Workshop on Business Process Modeling, Development, and Support: Business Processes and Support Systems: Design for Flexibility. The 17th Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE’05) (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Danei, J. Elliott, M. Heiler, T. Kerwien, V. Stiehl, Effectively and efficiently implementing complex business processes - a case study, in Empirical Studies on the Development of Executable Business Processes, Chapter 3 (Springer, Cham, 2019)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Hertis, M.B. Juric, An empirical analysis of business process execution language usage. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 40(08), 738–757 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Jordan, J. Evdemon, A. Alves, A. Arkin, S. Askary, C. Barreto, B. Bloch, F. Curbera, M. Ford, Y. Goland, A. Guízar, N. Kartha, C.K. Liu, R. Khalaf, D. König, M. Marin, V. Mehta, S. Thatte, D. van der Rijn, P. Yendluri, A. Yiu, Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0 (OASIS, Clovis, 2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Lübke, Using metric time lines for identifying architecture shortcomings in process execution architectures, in 2nd International Workshop on Software Architecture and Metrics (SAM), 2015 IEEE/ACM (IEEE, Piscataway, 2015), pp. 55–58Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Lübke, A. Ivanchikj, C. Pautasso, A template for categorizing empirical business process metrics, in Business Process Management Forum - BPM Forum 2017, ed. by J. Carmona, G. Engels, A. Kumar (Springer, Cham, 2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    T.J. McCabe, A complexity measure, in Proceedings of the 2Nd International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE ’76, Los Alamitos (IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington, 1976), 407 pp.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Meyer, L. Pufahl, K. Batoulis, D. Fahland, M. Weske, Automating data exchange in process choreographies. Inf. Syst. 53, 296–329 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Moser, A. Martens, K. Gorlach, W. Amme, A. Godlinski, Advanced verification of distributed ws-bpel business processes incorporating cssa-based data flow analysis, in IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC 2007), July 2007, pp. 98–105Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Nikaj, M. Weske, J. Mendling, Semi-automatic derivation of RESTful choreographies from business process choreographies. Softw. Syst. Model. 18(2), 1195–1208 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    R.M. Parizi, A.A.A. Ghani, An ensemble of complexity metrics for BPEL web processes, in Ninth ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking, and Parallel/Distributed Computing, 2008. SNPD ’08 (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. Runeson, M. Höst, A. Rainer, B. Regnell, Case Study Research in Software Engineeering – Guidelines and Examples (Wiley, Hoboken, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Slomiski, On using BPEL extensibility to implement OGSI and WSRF grid workflows. Concurr. Comput. Pract. Exp. 18(10), 1229–1241 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    W. Song, C.Z. Zhang, H.-A. Jacobsen, An empirical study on data flow bugs in business processes. IEEE Trans. Cloud Comput. PP, 1 (2018)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Y. Zheng, J. Zhou, P. Krause, Analysis of BPEL data dependencies, in 33rd EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (EUROMICRO 2007) Aug 2007, pp. 351–358Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. zur Muehlen, J. Recker, How much language is enough? Theoretical and practical use of the business process modeling notation, in Advanced Information Systems Engineering: 20th International Conference, CAiSE 2008 Montpellier, June 16–20, 2008 Proceedings, ed. by Z. Bellahsène, M. Léonard (Springer, Berlin, 2008), pp. 465–479Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.FG Software EngineeringLeibniz Universität HannoverHannoverGermany
  2. 2.Opitz Consulting Deutschland GmbHGummersbachGermany
  3. 3.W&W Informatik GmbHLudwigsburgGermany

Personalised recommendations