Architecture potential analysis: A closer look inside architecture evaluation

被引：3

作者：

Florentz, Bastian ^{[1
]}

Huhn, Michaela ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Institute for Programming and Reactive Systems, Technical University, Brunswick

来源：

Journal of Software | 2007年 / 2卷 / 04期

关键词：

Analysis; Architecture; Design Space Exploration; Embedded Systems; Evaluation;

D O I：

10.4304/jsw.2.4.43-56

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

The share of software in embedded systems has been growing permanently in the recent years. Thus, software architecture as well as its evaluation have become important parts of the development of embedded systems to describe, assess, and assure sound architecture as basis for high quality systems. Furthermore, design space exploration can be based on architecture evaluation. To achieve an efficient exploration process, architectural decisions need to be taken into account as part of the architecture. In this paper, a method for analyzing architecture potential on the basis of dependencies between quality attributes is presented and applied. An explicit representation and correlation of such dependencies provides decision support for architectural concerns. Not only can suboptimal decisions be avoided but rather valuable options are highlighted. Besides the quality of an architecture, knowledge of how to achieve and even improve the quality can be analyzed. The latter is the concern of architecture potential analysis presented in this paper. Furthermore, architectural decisions can be documented and will be traceable and justifiable with respect to the development rationale. The ongoing development process can then be based on dependable and well documented architectural decisions. The predictability of change impacts is increased. Thus, time and costs can be saved by avoiding suboptimal changes. © 2006 ACADEMY PUBLISHER.

引用

页码：43 / 56

页数：13

共 26 条

[1]

Florentz B., Systemarchitekturevaluation: Integration unterschiedlicher Kriterien, pp. 49-65, (2006)

[2]

Heinecke H., Schnelle K.-P., Fennel H., Bortolazzi J., Lundh L., Leflour J., Mate J.-L., Nishikawam K., Scharnhorst T., AUTomotive Open System ARchitecture-an industry-wide initiative to manage the complexity of emerging automotive E/E-architectures, Convergence 2004, International Congress on Transportation Electronics, (2004)

[3]

Debruyne V., Simonot-Lion F., Trinquet Y., EASTADL an Architecture Description Language, Validation and Verification Aspects, Workshop on Architecture Description Languages, (2004)

[4]

Clements P., Bachmann F., Bass L., Garlan D., Ivers J., Little R., Nord R., Stafford J., Documenting Software Architectures: Views and Beyond, (2002)

[5]

Bass L., Clements P., Kazman R., Software Architecture in Practice., (1998)

[6]

Babar M.A., Gorton I., Comparison of Scenario-Based Software Architecture Evaluation Methods, APSEC, pp. 600-607, (2004)

[7]

Babar M.A., Zhu L., Jeffery D.R., A Framework for Classifying and Comparing Software Architecture Evaluation Methods, ASWEC, pp. 309-319, (2004)

[8]

Bergner K., Rausch A., Sihling M., Ternit T., DoSAM-Domain-Specific Software Architecture Comparison Model, QoSA-SOQUA, 3712, pp. 4-20, (2005)

[9]

Dobrica L., Niemela E., A Survey on Software Architecture Analysis Methods, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28, 7, pp. 638-653, (2002)

[10]

Ionita M.T., Hammer D.K., Obbink H., Scenario-Based Software Architecture Evaluation Methods: An Overview, ICSE/SARA, (2002)

← 1 2 3 →