1 / 20

A Graphical Representation of COTS-based Software Architectures

A Graphical Representation of COTS-based Software Architectures. Raúl Monge – UTFSM, Valparaiso, Chile Carina Alves – University College, UK Antonio Vallecillo – Universidad de Málaga , Spain (Supported by “ WEST ” project). Intro/Motivation.

donald
Télécharger la présentation

A Graphical Representation of COTS-based Software Architectures

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Graphical Representation of COTS-based Software Architectures Raúl Monge – UTFSM, Valparaiso, Chile Carina Alves – University College, UK Antonio Vallecillo – Universidad de Málaga, Spain (Supported by “WEST” project)

  2. Intro/Motivation • Complex software systems require expressive notations for describing and analysing their “software architectures” • ADLs are OK, but unfriendly • UML is friendly, but not completely fit • ...and then?

  3. Goal of our work • Propose a graphical notation for representing software architectures • Using UML • Only for COTS-based systems • Not only for describing structures... • ...but also with quality-related “properties” • Future extensions for dealing with NFRs

  4. Agenda • Background • Software Architectures, ADLs, UML • Our proposal • Description • An example • Conclusions • Discussion • Future work

  5. Software Architecture • Defines the high-level structure of a system, in terms of a collection of interacting components and the relationships among them • Concepts/Elements: • Components (computational elements & data stores) • Ports (“typed” points of interaction) • Connectors (interactions among components) • Roles (“typed” roles that participants play) • Systems (collections of components & connectors) • Properties (extra-functional and quality aspects) • Styles (represent families of related systems)

  6. ADLs • Architectural Description Languages • Usually allow • The [formal] description of the structure and behavior of the software architecture • Some kind of [formal] analysis (safety & liveneness properties, composibility,...) • Examples: Wright, Darwin, C2, Rapide, ... • Usually unfriendly or non-standard graphical notations • Do not account for quality aspects or NFRs

  7. UML for Software Architecture • UML (1.x) does not offer a clear way for encoding and modeling SAs: • Semantic clashes between UML and SA concepts (eg. component, system,...) • No clear mappings between UML and SA concepts (eg. component,...) • Vague semantics of UML vs precise ADL semantics • Semantic gaps for modeling SA concepts (eg. connector, style,...) • OMG has included a request for modeling SA in the UML 2.0 Superstructre RFP

  8. Our proposal • Propose a graphical notation for representing software architectures • Using UML • Only for COTS-based systems • Not only for describing structures... • ...but also with quality-related “properties” • Future extensions for dealing with NFRs

  9. Elements of our proposal • Structural elements • Components and ports • Connectors and roles • Systems • Styles • Properties • Behavioral elements • Behavior • Choreographies • Quality attributes

  10. ports Components

  11. Roles Connectors

  12. Systems, Properties, Styles • Systems • modeled as UML subsystems • Properties • modeled by stereotyped notes • Styles • Expressed in OCL

  13. Behavior

  14. Choreography

  15. Quality attributes

  16. Qualifying elements • Architectural elements (components, ports, connectors, roles, systems) can be qualified

  17. An example

  18. Conclusions • Simple and easy-to-use notation • Enables different kind of analyses • Allows strutural and behavioral descriptions

  19. Conclusions/Future work • Test and validate with real examples • Tool support for the analyses • Desribe NFRs and the “rationale” behind the architectural decisions • Simple and easy-to-use notation • Enables different kind of analyses • Allows strutural and behavioral descriptions

  20. End of presentation http://www.lcc.uma.es/~av/Publicaciones/02/ideas-76.pps

More Related