ArchJava: connecting software architecture to implementation

Aldrich,; Chambers,; Notkin,

doi:10.1109/icse.2002.1007967

Cited by 236 publications

(290 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

280

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, in the literature most approaches that try to deal with the validation of dynamic software system concentrate the changes to the structure by using graph and graph grammars formalisms or topological constraints [11,23,25,30,32,39,14,22]. As far as changes to behaviour are concerned, only few approaches exist that make use either of behavioural equivalence checks or of the type system [2,3,4] or through code certification [12,33]. If dependability has to be preserved through adaptation, whatever the change mechanism is, at the time the change occurs a validation check must be performed.…”

Section: The Process View: the Role Of Models At Run Timementioning

confidence: 99%

Run Time Models in Adaptive Service Infrastructure

Autili

Inverardi

Tivoli

2010

Run-Time Models for Self-Managing Systems and Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Software in the near ubiquitous future will need to cope with variability, as software systems get deployed on an increasingly large diversity of computing platforms and operates in different execution environments. Heterogeneity of the underlying communication and computing infrastructure, mobility inducing changes to the execution environments and therefore changes to the availability of resources and continuously evolving requirements require software systems to be adaptable according to the context changes. Software systems should also be reliable and meet the user's requirements and needs. Moreover, due to its pervasiveness, software systems must be dependable. Supporting the validation of these self-adaptive systems to ensure dependability requires a complete rethinking of the software life cycle. The traditional division among static analysis and dynamic analysis is blurred by the need to validate dynamic systems adaptation. Models play a key role in the validation of dependable systems, dynamic adaptation calls for the use of such models at run time. In this paper we describe the approach we have undertaken in recent projects to address the challenge of assessing dependability for adaptive software systems.

show abstract

Section: The Process View: the Role Of Models At Run Timementioning

confidence: 99%

Run Time Models in Adaptive Service Infrastructure

Autili

Inverardi

Tivoli

2010

Run-Time Models for Self-Managing Systems and Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…ADLs as Fractal [7] or ArchJava [2] are implementation oriented. Lots of existing approaches decouple implementation code from architecture.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As the first diagram, it is composed of four panels: A panel for global tree-view of software architecture, a panel for graphical software architecture building, a panel for adding critics on this specification and a set of property panels for each logical architecture element. From a logical software architecture definition, we could directly map its model to non distributed platform as ArchJava [2] or Julia, the implementation of Fractal Model [7]. SafArchie Studio transforms automatically its logical architecture XML representation and architecture type XML representation towards XML Fractal ADL.…”

Section: Logical Software Architecturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this section, instead of a catalog of ADL characteristics, we focus on three significant directions for software architecture definitions. SafArchie Studio is highly inspired by the main characteristics of these works: the specification and the analysis of dynamic distributed software behavior for Darwin [17] or Wright [3], the strong link with the implementation for ArchJava [2] or Fractal [7], and the building of architecture-driven software development environment forArchStudio [10].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Academic approaches with ArchJava [2] or Fractal [7] provide more structural elements as composite or connector for precisely defining an abstract architecture and transforming it on deployed and running code. However, facing the difficulties to define correct and safety software architectures, more abstract software architecture models were proposed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Safarchie Studio: ArgoUML Extensions to Build Safe Architectures

Barais¹,

Duchien²

IFIP the International Federation for Information Processing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nowadays, no standard and universal definition of software architecture was accepted by all the community. Various points of view on different studies bring to several approaches. These approaches focus on only one or two concerns such as component interfaces specification, behavioral analysis or software reconfiguration. This paper argues that, in order to accrue the true benefits of software architecture approaches, one may need to use an architecture centric approach with a global reasoning: From software architecture design to software architecture management to software architecture building, deployment and refinement. However, these different concerns of a software architecture definition must be in consistency. For this reason, we based our approach on architecture types that are points of reference at each step of our reasoning. We offer with SafArchie Studio, a first architecture centric approach based on three-view perspective and driven by the component life cycle.

show abstract

Productivity and performance through components: the ASCI Sweep3D application

Yoon

Browne

Crocker

et al. 2006

Concurrency and Computation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYThis paper is a case study of the effectiveness of component-oriented development for enhancing both productivity and performance for parallel programs. A process for converting monolithic applications into semantically composable components is described. The supporting software, the P-COM 2 compositional compiler, is briefly described. The componentized version of Sweep3D is described. Productivity is illustrated by composing different instances of the Sweep3D code through automated composition of components using P-COM 2 . These instances, each of which targets improving performance for some execution environment or problem case, are examples of a family of instances which are composable from a modest set of components. It is found that customization of componentized codes by componentlevel adaptation may yield substantial performance improvement for specific execution environments. We identify and explain some of the benefits of component-oriented development for high-performance parallel systems.

show abstract

ArchJava: connecting software architecture to implementation

Cited by 236 publications

References 17 publications

Run Time Models in Adaptive Service Infrastructure

Run Time Models in Adaptive Service Infrastructure

Safarchie Studio: ArgoUML Extensions to Build Safe Architectures

Productivity and performance through components: the ASCI Sweep3D application

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About