Use and Identification of Components in Component-Based Software Development Methods

Forsell, Marko; Halttunen, Veikko; Ahonen, Jarmo J.

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-44995-9_17

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To better understand the properties and scope of the proposed process framework, I characterize it using the NIM-SAD method evaluation framework [4]. This allows researchers who are interested in using my process framework to compare it with other available methods and processes.…”

Section: Evaluation Of Process Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building reverse engineering tools with software components: Towards a dedicated development process for academia

Kienle

2008

2008 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

My dissertation explores a new approach to construct tools in the domain of reverse engineering. The approach leverages already available (off-the-shelf) components and products, assembling and customizing them programmatically. This approach can be characterized as componentbased tool-building (CBTD). While many academic tools follow CBTD-presumable with the goal to save time and effort-, this approach is still pursued in an ad hoc manner. In my dissertation I strive to advance the current state of CBTD towards a discipline that is more predictable and formal. This is achieved with two major research contributions. The first contribution states the necessary requirements for a tool-building process in academia in the domain of reverse engineering. These process requirements have been identified with a literature survey of the current tool-building approaches that exist in academia as well as the author's first-hand experience. The second contribution is a dedicated process framework for CBTD that meets the process requirements identified by the first contribution. The process framework is a first step towards formalizing CBTD with the goal to help researchers to build tools in a more predictable and effective manner.

show abstract

Section: Evaluation Of Process Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building reverse engineering tools with software components: Towards a dedicated development process for academia

Kienle

2008

2008 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We have also demonstrated that the framework is modifiable by extending it based on a simple comparison with similar work in other domains [15,16].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Other sources of the framework include [16,18], which are applications of evaluation frameworks based on the work that forms the foundation of our work as well. Our framework does not include an exhaustive list of questions that needs to be asked for method comparison.…”

Section: Maturity Of Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Scenario-Based Software Architecture Evaluation Methods

Babar

Gorton

11th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because tools help in execution of the methods, they are also considered in the element of method contents. The third source for the evaluation framework is an application of the NIMSAD framework for component-based software development methods [20].…”

Section: An Evaluation Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of software product line architecture design methods: COPA, FAST, FORM, KobrA and QADA

Matinlassi

Proceedings. 26th International Conference on Software Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Product line architectures (PLAs) have been under continuous attention in the software research community during the past few years. Although several methods have been established to create PLAs there are not available studies comparing PLA methods. Five methods are known to answer the needs of software product lines: COPA, FAST, FORM, KobrA and QADA. In this paper, an evaluation framework is introduced for comparing PLA design methods. The framework considers the methods from the points of view of method context, user, structure and validation. Comparison revealed distinguishable ideologies between the methods. Therefore, methods do not overlap even though they all are PLA design methods. All the methods have been validated on various domains. The most common domains are telecommunication infrastructure and information domains. Some of the methods apply software standards; at least OMG's MDA for method structures, UML for language and IEEE Std-1471-2000 for viewpoint definitions.

show abstract

Use and Identification of Components in Component-Based Software Development Methods

Cited by 6 publications

References 20 publications

Building reverse engineering tools with software components: Towards a dedicated development process for academia

Building reverse engineering tools with software components: Towards a dedicated development process for academia

Comparison of Scenario-Based Software Architecture Evaluation Methods

Comparison of software product line architecture design methods: COPA, FAST, FORM, KobrA and QADA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About