An evolution management model for multi-level component-based software architectures

Mokni, Abderrahman; Huchard, Marianne; Urtado, Christelle; Vauttier, Sylvain; Zhang, Yulin

doi:10.18293/seke2015-172

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Software Composition Analysis (SCA) [45], [46] refers to the process that provides visibility of open source components in a system. As stated by developer #14, "Managing a product against software decay can be a nightmare, but again a good SCA tool should be able to take care of that.…”

Section: ) Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Architecture Erosion: The Practitioners' Perceptive

Liang

Soliman

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As software systems evolve, their architecture is meant to adapt accordingly by following the changes in requirements, the environment, and the implementation. However, in practice, the evolving system often deviates from the architecture, causing severe consequences to system maintenance and evolution. This phenomenon of architecture erosion has been studied extensively in research, but not yet been examined from the point of view of developers. In this exploratory study, we look into how developers perceive the notion of architecture erosion, its causes and consequences, as well as tools and practices to identify and control architecture erosion. To this end, we searched through several popular online developer communities for collecting data of discussions related to architecture erosion. Besides, we identified developers involved in these discussions and conducted a survey with 10 participants and held interviews with 4 participants. Our findings show that: (1) developers either focus on the structural manifestation of architecture erosion or on its effect on run-time qualities, maintenance and evolution;(2) alongside technical factors, architecture erosion is caused to a large extent by non-technical factors; (3) despite the lack of dedicated tools for detecting architecture erosion, developers usually identify erosion through a number of symptoms; and (4) there are effective measures that can help to alleviate the impact of architecture erosion.

show abstract

Section: ) Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Architecture Erosion: The Practitioners' Perceptive

Liang

Soliman

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An evolution plan aims at recovering consistence within architectural levels and coherence between those levels after a perturbation of any of the architecture levels. Also, the versioning activity has been considered in Dedal through a position paper, which presents a three-level versioning graph for managing Dedal architecture versioning [14].…”

Section: Previous Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Substitutability-Based Version Propagation to Manage the Evolution of Three-Level Component-Based Architectures

Borgne¹,

Delahaye²,

Huchard³

et al. 2017

International Conferences on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An important issue of software architecture evolution is the capability for architects to keep a trace of the evolution of their work. This paper states that existing research on versioning does not cope well with software architectures. Indeed, it does not propose any adapted solutions to manage the co-evolution of the different architecture representations produced during the development process. We base our work on a three-level architecture description language (ADL) named Dedal, which represents architectures at three abstraction levels. Moreover, Dedal provides a formal base for managing version propagation. It is based on component substitutability that generalizes Liskov's substitutability principle. We propose a set of rules to support the prediction of version compatibility in terms of impact on the different architecture levels.

show abstract

“…In previous work [19,20], we specified Dedal models using the B modeling language and proposed an evolution management model to enable the simulation, analysis and validation of evolution scenarios at any abstraction level using ProB. At that time, evolution was not yet automated since models were specified and evolved manually and separately.…”

Section: Motivation and Contributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In previous work [20], we have made an evaluation of the performances of the ProB solver to generate evolution plans by state space exploration. The tested strategies were Depth-First (DF), Breadth-First (BF) and mixed (DF/BF) [23].…”

Section: The Dedalmanager Solvermentioning

confidence: 99%

A formal approach for managing component-based architecture evolution

Mokni

Urtado

Vauttier

et al. 2016

Science of Computer Programming

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceSoftware architectures are subject to several types of change during the software lifecycle (e.g. adding requirements, correcting bugs, enhancing performance). The variety of these changes makes architecture evolution management complex because all architecture descriptions must remain consistent after change. To do so, whatever part of the architectural description they affect, the effects of change have to be propagated to the other parts. The goal of this paper is to provide support for evolving component-based architectures at multiple abstraction levels. Architecture descriptions follow anarchitectural model named Dedal, the three description levels of which correspond to the three main development steps | specification, implementation and deployment. This paper formalizes an evolution management model that generates evolution plans according to a given architecture change request, thus preserving consistency of architecture descriptions and coherence between them. The approach is implemented as an Eclipse-based tool and validated with three evolution scenarios of a Home Automation Software example

show abstract

An evolution management model for multi-level component-based software architectures

Cited by 6 publications

References 17 publications

Understanding Architecture Erosion: The Practitioners' Perceptive

Understanding Architecture Erosion: The Practitioners' Perceptive

Substitutability-Based Version Propagation to Manage the Evolution of Three-Level Component-Based Architectures

A formal approach for managing component-based architecture evolution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About