Quality of Software Architectures Models and Architectures : 4th International Conference on the Quality of Software Architectures, QoSA 2008, Karlsruhe, Germany, October 14-17, 2008, Proceedings

Models are used in all kinds of engineering disciplines to abstract from the various details of the modelled entity in order to focus on a speci?c aspect. Like a blueprint in civil engineering, a software architecture providesan abstraction from the full software system's complexity. It allows software designers to get an overview on the system underdevelopmentandtoanalyzeitsproperties.Inthissense,modelsarethefoundation needed for software development to become a true engineering discipline. Especially when reasoning on a software system's extra-functional properties, its software architecture carries the necessary information for early, design-time analyses. These analyses take the software architecture as input and can be used to direct the design process by allowing a systematic evaluation of different design alternatives. For example, they can be used to cancel out decisions which would lead to architecture - signs whose implementation would not comply with extra-functionalrequirements like performance or reliability constraints. Besides such quality attributes directly visible to the end user, internal quality attributes, e.g., maintainability, also highly depend on the system's architecture. In addition to the above-mentioned technical aspects of software architecture m- els, non-technical aspects, especially project management-related activities, require an explicit software architecture model. The models are used as input for cost esti- tions, time-, deadline-, and resource planning for the development teams. They serve the project management activities of planning, executing, and controlling, which are necessary to deliver high-quality software systems in time and within the budget. 3540878785......Page 1 front-matter......Page 2 Introduction......Page 11 Software Quality Model Driven Framework......Page 13 Towards a Conceptual Map of Models for Quality Evaluation......Page 16 Queueing Network Models......Page 17 Markov Models......Page 22 Simulation Models......Page 28 Control-Oriented Models......Page 29 Model Comparison and Discussion......Page 30 Conclusions and Current Research Challenges......Page 32 Introduction......Page 38 Design Reasoning......Page 39 User Interface Usability......Page 40 Experiment Procedure......Page 41 Findings......Page 42 Discussions of the Findings......Page 47 Discussions......Page 48 Limitations......Page 49 Conclusions......Page 50 Introduction......Page 53 Design Decision Representation......Page 54 Decision Exploration and Visualization Tools......Page 55 Current Design Decision Tool Support......Page 56 Decision / Relationship List......Page 57 Decision Structure Visualization......Page 58 Decision Chronology Visualization......Page 59 Decision Impact Visualization......Page 60 Experience with the Tool......Page 61 Conclusion......Page 62 Introduction......Page 65 A Framework with Distributed Architectural Styles......Page 66 Three Classical Distributed Architecture Style Models......Page 67 Modelling Architectural Styles......Page 68 Functional Model......Page 70 Pure Functional Model of a Versioning System......Page 71 Functional and Style-Based Model Transformation......Page 72 Two Style Specific Models of the Case Study......Page 73 Preparing Architecture Quality Analysis......Page 75 Related Work......Page 76 Conclusion and Perspective......Page 77 Introduction......Page 81 Java PathFinder......Page 82 Behavior Protocols......Page 83 Goal Revisited......Page 84 Cooperation of Model Checkers......Page 85 Environment Simulation Concept......Page 86 Cooperation......Page 87 Verification......Page 88 Motivation Example Revisited......Page 89 Evaluation......Page 90 Case Studies and Performance Evaluation......Page 91 Related Work......Page 92 Conclusion......Page 93 Introduction......Page 96 Related Work......Page 98 The General Methodology......Page 99 Tool Support to MOSES......Page 102 Mapping UML-RT Stereotypes into UML 2 Metaclasses......Page 104 Two Example Prototypes: Round-Robin CPU and Main Dispatcher......Page 106 Validation of the UML 2 Implementation......Page 108 Conclusions......Page 110 Introduction......Page 113 Structure of the EA Function......Page 115 EA Delivery Function......Page 116 EA Process Model......Page 117 Bodies and Roles within the EA Function......Page 120 EA Function at a Large International Company......Page 123 Lessons Learned......Page 125 Conclusions......Page 126 Introduction......Page 129 Background......Page 130 The ATOP Methodology......Page 131 Target Models......Page 134 Properties Specifications......Page 135 Translation Elements......Page 136 Case Study......Page 137 Related Work......Page 140 Conclusions......Page 142 Introduction......Page 145 Performance Reasoning Framework......Page 146 Intermediate Constructive Model......Page 149 Performance Model Generation......Page 150 Performance Metamodel......Page 151 From ICM to Performance Model......Page 152 Performance Analysis......Page 154 Example......Page 155 Related Work......Page 156 Conclusions......Page 159 Introduction......Page 162 M-A-P-E Pattern......Page 164 Policy Point Pattern......Page 165 Evaluation Method......Page 166 Case Study......Page 167 Generate Key Scenarios......Page 168 Determining Pattern Alternatives......Page 169 Identify Middleware Mechanisms......Page 171 Define Quality Attribute Scale......Page 172 Evaluation......Page 173 Conclusion......Page 175 Introduction......Page 178 Requirements for Software Architecture Evaluation Methods......Page 179 Basic Concepts......Page 181 The Architecture Quality Gate......Page 182 Motivation......Page 185 Dependency Management......Page 186 Case Study 1: Effectiveness of the Architecture Questionnaire......Page 187 Case Study 2: Effectiveness of Lightweight ATAM......Page 188 Case Study 3: Architecture Management......Page 189 Conclusion and Future Work......Page 191 Introduction......Page 193 Sharing the AK of Quantitative Analysis......Page 194 Introduction......Page 195 AK Basis Model......Page 196 Quantitative Analysis Process......Page 197 Integration of Analysis Models......Page 198 Validation of Designs Using Analysis Models......Page 199 The Knowledge Architect Tool Suite......Page 201 Introduction......Page 203 Related Work......Page 204 Conclusions and Future Work......Page 205 back-matter......Page 208

this Book Constitutes The Thoroughly Refereed Post-proceedings Of The Fourth International Conference On The Quality Of Software Architectures, Qosa 2008, Held In Medford, Ma, Usa, In July 2007, In Conjunction With The 10th International Acm Sigsoft Symposium On Component-based Software Engineering, Cbse 2007, And The Rosatea 2007 Event, Investigating The Role Of Software Architecture For Testing And Analysis, Forming The Federated Events On Component-based Software Engineering And Software Architecture, Comparch 2007.

the 13 Revised Full Papers Presented Together With 1 Keynote Lecture Were Carefully Reviewed And Selected From 42 Submissions. The Papers Are Organized In Topical Sections On Architectural Design And Architectural Decisions, Tracing Architectural Decisions, Architecture Evaluation, Architecture Evolution, Architecting Process And Architectural Knowledge.

This book constitutes the thoroughly refereed post-proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the Quality of Software Architectures, QoSA 2008, held in Medford, MA, USA, in July 2007, in conjunction with the 10th International ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Component-Based Software Engineering, CBSE 2007, and the ROSATEA 2007 event, investigating the Role of Software Architecture for Testing and Analysis, forming the federated events on Component-Based Software Engineering and Software Architecture, CompArch 2007. The 13 revised full papers presented together with 1 keynote lecture were carefully reviewed and selected from 42 submissions. The papers are organized in topical sections on architectural design and architectural decisions, tracing architectural decisions, architecture evaluation, architecture evolution, architecting process and architectural knowledge