NFRs-aware architectural evolution of component-based software

ABSTRACT

During software maintenance, some non-functional properties may be lost. This is due to the lack of an explicit definition of their links with the corresponding architectural choices. In this paper, we present a solution that automates the checking of non-functional properties after the evolution of a component-based software. Our approach emphasizes the interest of formally documenting the links binding non-functional requirements to architectural choices. The proposed formalism is based on the Object Constraint Language (OCL) applied to a software component metamodel. We also present a prototype tool which uses this documentation to warn the developer of possible effects of an architectural change on non-functional requirements.

REFERENCES

• 1: Paul Clements , Rick Kazman, Software Architecture in Practices, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 2003
• 2: Eric M. Dashofy , André van der Hoek , Richard N. Taylor, A comprehensive approach for the development of modular software architecture description languages, ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), v.14 n.2, p.199-245, April 2005 [doi>10.1145/1061254.1061258]
• 3: X. Franch , P. Botella, Supporting software maintenance with non-functional information, Proceedings of the 1st Euromicro Working Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR '97), p.10, March 17-19, 1997
• 4: David Garlan , Robert T. Monroe , David Wile, Acme: architectural description of component-based systems, Foundations of component-based systems, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 2000
• 5: ISO. Software Engineering - Product quality - Part 1: Quality model. International Organization for Standardization web site. ISO/IEC 9126-1. http://www.iso.org, 2001.
• 6: Nenad Medvidovic , Richard N. Taylor, A Classification and Comparison Framework for Software Architecture Description Languages, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.26 n.1, p.70-93, January 2000 [doi>10.1109/32.825767 ]
• 7: J. Mylopoulos , L. Chung , B. Nixon, Representing and Using Nonfunctional Requirements: A Process-Oriented Approach, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.18 n.6, p.483-497, June 1992 [doi>10.1109/32.142871 ]
• 8: Dewayne E. Perry , Alexander L. Wolf, Foundations for the study of software architecture, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, v.17 n.4, p.40-52, Oct. 1992 [doi>10.1145/141874.141884]
• 9: C. Tibermacine, R. Fleurquin, and S. Sadou. Preserving Architectural Choices throughout the Component-based Software Development Process. In Proceedings of WICSA'05, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, November 2005.
• 10: Rob van Ommering , Frank van der Linden , Jeff Kramer , Jeff Magee, The Koala Component Model for Consumer Electronics Software, Computer, v.33 n.3, p.78-85, March 2000 [doi>10.1109/2.825699 ]

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING

General Terms:
Design, Documentation