Crosscutting patterns and design stability: An exploratory analysis

Figueiredo, Eduardo; Silva, Bruno; Sant’Anna, Cláudio; Garcia, Alessandro; Whittle, Jon; Nunes, Dulce Maria

doi:10.1109/icpc.2009.5090037

Cited by 26 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These patterns were also defined and documented in our previous code-level concern analyses [7]. Black Sheep is described as a specialised category of concern that affects only a few scattered architectural elements (e.g., Sorting in Figure 1).…”

Section: Classifying Architectural Concern Shapesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All instances of concern shapes detected in the MM architecture are listed in the project website [1]. Details about patterns of concern shapes can be found at [7].…”

Section: Classifying Architectural Concern Shapesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, concern traces allow describing which elements in architectural artefacts were influenced by a stakeholder's concern. However, all studies analysing the value of concern traces focused on implementation artefacts [4,7] rather than on early software development artefacts. This paper presents a first exploratory evaluation on the effectiveness of concern traceability for assessing architecture stability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Detecting architecture instabilities with concern traces: An exploratory study

Figueiredo

Galvão

Khan

et al. 2009

2009 Joint Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture &Amp; European Conference on Software Architecture

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Classifying Architectural Concern Shapesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All instances of concern shapes detected in the MM architecture are listed in the project website [1]. Details about patterns of concern shapes can be found at [7].…”

Section: Classifying Architectural Concern Shapesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Detecting architecture instabilities with concern traces: An exploratory study

Figueiredo

Galvão

Khan

et al. 2009

2009 Joint Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture &Amp; European Conference on Software Architecture

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, it presents a suite of heuristics with the distinguishing characteristic of exploiting concerns as explicit abstractions in the design assessment process (Section 4). The heuristic rules rely on a set of concern-driven metrics (Section 3) and target at detecting overlapping categories of modularity problems, namely concern diffusion, crosscutting patterns [7], and classical design flaws [10,20]. Third, this paper provides a systematic evaluation on the accuracy of the concernsensitive heuristics in the context of six applications: three of them are medium-sized academic prototypes and the other three are larger software projects.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact, with the emergence of AOSD, there is a growing body of relevant work in the software engineering literature focusing either on concern representation and identification techniques [5,7,21] or on concern analysis tools [8,21]. However, there is not much knowledge on the efficacy of concern-driven assessment mechanisms for design modularity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applying and Evaluating Concern-Sensitive Design Heuristics

Figueiredo

Sant’Anna

Garcia

et al. 2009

2009 XXIII Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Empirical studies have stressed that aspect-oriented decompositions can cause non-obvious flaws in the modularity of certain design concerns. Without proper design evaluation mechanisms, the identification of these flaws can become counter-productive and impractical. Nowadays, modularity assessment is mostly supported by metric-based heuristics rooted at conventional attributes, such as module cohesion and coupling. However, such conventional module-driven assessment cannot be tailored to the design concerns. This paper proposes and systematically evaluates a representative suite of concern-sensitive heuristic rules. The accuracy of the heuristics is assessed through their application to six systems. The analysis was based on the heuristics support for: (i) addressing the shortcomings of conventional metrics-based assessments, (ii) reducing the manifestation of false positives and false negatives, and (iii) finding the presence of design flaws relative to both classes and aspects.Resumo-Estudos experimentais recentes mostraram que decomposições orientadas a aspectos podem causar anomalias na modularidade do design de certos interesses e que tais anomalias muitas vezes não são óbvias. Sem mecanismos de avaliação de design apropriados, a identificação dessas anomalias pode se tornar contraproducente e impraticável. Atualmente, a avaliação da modularidade de design orientado a aspectos é na maioria das vezes apoiada por heurísticas baseadas em métricas que quantificam atributos convencionais, como coesão e acoplamento de módulos. No entanto, essa avaliação dirigida por atributos convencionais não leva em conta os interesses que guiam o design. Esse artigo propõe e avalia sistematicamente um conjunto de regras heurísticas sensíveis a interesses. A acurácia das heurísticas foi avaliada por meio de sua aplicação em seis diferentes sistemas. A análise se baseou na capacidade das heurísticas de: (i) tratar das limitações de abordagens de avaliação baseadas em métricas convencionais, (ii) detectar a presença de anomalias de design relacionadas a classes e aspectos, e (iii) reduzir a manifestação de falsos positivos e falsos negativos.

show abstract

Mastering crosscutting architectural decisions with aspects

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY When reflecting upon driving system requirements such as security and availability, software architects often face decisions that have a broadly scoped impact on the software architecture. These decisions are the core of the architecting process because they typically have implications intertwined in a multitude of architectural elements and across multiple views. Without a modular representation and management of those crucial choices, architects cannot properly communicate, assess and reason about their crosscutting effects. The result is a number of architectural breakdowns, such as misinformed architectural evaluation, time‐consuming trade‐off analysis and unmanageable traceability. This paper presents an architectural documentation approach in which aspects are exploited as a natural way to capture widely‐scoped design decisions in a modular fashion. The approach consists of a simple high‐level notation to describe crosscutting decisions, and a supplementary language that allows architects to formally define how such architectural decisions affect the final architectural decomposition according to different views. On the basis of two case studies, we have systematically assessed to what extent our approach: (i) supports the description of heterogeneous forms of crosscutting architecture decisions, (ii) improves the support for architecture modularity analysis, and (iii) enhances upstream and downstream traceability of crosscutting architectural decisions. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Crosscutting patterns and design stability: An exploratory analysis

Cited by 26 publications

References 12 publications

Detecting architecture instabilities with concern traces: An exploratory study

Detecting architecture instabilities with concern traces: An exploratory study

Applying and Evaluating Concern-Sensitive Design Heuristics

Mastering crosscutting architectural decisions with aspects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About