Some complexities in computerbased systems and their implications for system development

Jackson, Michael

doi:10.1109/cmpeur.1990.113645

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The ViewPoint approach is also strongly related to Jackson's recent work on views and implementations [11] in which he describes "complexity in terms of separation and composition of concerns", and focuses on the problems of coping with the relationships between concerns (cf. ViewPoint relationships).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A configurable framework for method and tool integration

Kramer

Finkelsteiin

1991

Software Development Environments and CASE Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is an urgent need to provide a sound generic framework for method and tool integration, where many differing notations are used, software development is distributed and management support for the software development process is provided. This paper argues that there is much to be learnt from proven practical techniques for software construction, particularly those that support distributed software integration, heterogeneity and software management. Configuration Programming is one such approach which advocates the use of a separate, declarative configuration language for the description of system structure. It has been used in the Conic Environment for the development of distributable software, and is being extended for the configuration of heterogeneous components programmed in different programming languages. A number of software tools exist for the development, construction and management of Conic systems. This paper shows how an analogous set of the principles, practice and tools from configuration programming can be combined with recent work on ViewPoints 1 to provide a configurable framework for method and tool integration.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A configurable framework for method and tool integration

Kramer

Finkelsteiin

1991

Software Development Environments and CASE Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Jackson [54] early on recognized that it is not just necessary to break up a software system into parts, but that it then is also necessary to compose the parts into the eventual system. Composition may be very complex, as it is difficult, for instance, to predict the exact behavior when a large number of interrelated parts are all included in a system or when the selection of a particular variant in a software product line involves setting hundreds of parameters.…”

Section: Benefits Of Modularizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A design perspective on modularity

Hoek

López

2011

Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Aspect-Oriented Software Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modularity is essential to software development. Without it, large software systems simply could not be realized. Designers typically strive to achieve a high degree of modularity by separating different concerns over different modules, a process called modularization. Modularity, however, is but one of the goals that the designer has. Furthermore, design does not just take place when the designer decides upon the structure of the code. Instead, design is a multi-dimensional activity that permeates the software life cycle. In this paper, we examine modularity as seen through the lens of design as it takes place across the life cycle, particularly dissecting typical activities in which designers engage to study how these activities involve and relate to modularity. The result is an affirmation that modularity is and always should be an integral part of designers' work, but that our current techniques to achieve modularity fall short in a number of critical ways. A research agenda is laid out toward overcoming these shortcomings.

show abstract

“…Separation of concerns is clearly of limited use if the concerns that have been separated cannot be integrated; as Jackson notes, "having divided to conquer, we must reunite to rule" [32]. Thus, any approach to separation of concerns must have a corresponding integration approach, to permit the synthesis of software that deals with multiple concerns.…”

Section: Separation and Integration Of Concernsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Software engineering tools and environments

Ossher

Harrison

Tarr

2000

Proceedings of the Conference on the Future of Software Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The development of methodologies, formalisms, and tool and environment support for separation, extraction and integration of concerns. Linguistic and tool support for morphogenic software: software that is malleable for life, sufficiently adaptable to allow context mismatch to be overcome with acceptable effort, repeatedly, as new, unanticipated contexts arise. The development of new methodologies, formalisms, and processes to address nontraditional software lifecycles, and the tool and environment support to facilitate them. The development of new methodologies, formalisms, processes and tool and environment support to address the engineering of software in new, challenging domains, such as pervasive computing and e-commerce. The adoption or adaptation of XML, Enterprise Java Beans and sophisticated message brokering for integration of both tools and commercial applications. The AuthorsBill Harrison has been with IBM in its system development divisions since 1966 and was one of the initial designers of the [then] OS/360 Time-Sharing Option (TSO). Since 1970, he has been associated with the IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Laboratory. His career at IBM has included several periods with different research focus: the design and implementation of operating systems, the design of programming languages, compilers and program analysis and optimization, the design of software development environments exploiting mixed text and graphic styles to improve the human interaction with the a full-life-cycle process of industrial software development. More recently, he has worked on technology for the design and development of component-based software, including co-authoring the Subject-Oriented Programming approach to developing of suites of related applications and application components, Message-Oriented programming for reducing the fragility of object-oriented software by removing the objects from the clients' view of method call, and MessageCentral, a project that aims to provide a technology base for assisting with component integration by automatically creating the interface and conversion glue needed when software components use mismatching definitions for the messages they interchange. Bill received a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering from MIT, Cambridge, Mass., in 1968, a M.S. degree from Syracuse University, Syracuse, N.Y., in 1973, and a M.Ph. [Master of Philosophy in Computer Science) degree from Syracuse University, Syracuse, N.Y., in 1979. He is the author of several dozen journal and conference papers and presentations and has been active in influencing computer software standards, including ANS X3-273, ISO 13719 and ISO Draft 13719-1, and several adopted OMG Specifications. He holds a Japanese patent (7-21751) for technology in human-interface design and was an IEEE Distinguished Lecturer on Software Environments for the years 1987-1990. 261 Harold Ossher joined the IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center as a Research Staff Member in 1986. He currently manages a group that conducts research and technology tr...

show abstract

Some complexities in computerbased systems and their implications for system development

Cited by 13 publications

References 8 publications

A configurable framework for method and tool integration

A configurable framework for method and tool integration

A design perspective on modularity

Software engineering tools and environments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About