A Framework for Classifying and Comparing Software Architecture Tools for Quality Evaluation

被引:0
作者
Anjos, Eudisley [1 ]
Zenha-Rela, Mario [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Coimbra, Ctr Informat & Syst, CISUC, P-3000 Coimbra, Portugal
来源
COMPUTATIONAL SCIENCE AND ITS APPLICATIONS - ICCSA 2011, PT V | 2011年 / 6786卷
关键词
software quality challenges; trends for achieving quality objectives; architecture evaluation process; software architecture; Affidavit; CLASSIFICATION;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
Software quality is a crucial factor for system success. Several tools have been proposed to support the evaluation and comparison of software architecture designs. However, the diversity in focus, approaches, interfaces and results leaves the researcher and practitioner wondering what would be the most appropriate solution for their specific goals. This paper presents a comparison framework that identifies the most relevant features for categorizing different architecture evaluation tools according to six different dimensions. The results show the attributes that a comprehensive tool should support include: the ability to handle multiple modelling approaches, integration with the industry standard UML or specific ADL, support for trade-off analysis of competing quality attributes and, the reuse of knowledge through the build-up of new architectural patterns. This comparison is able to, not only guide the choice of evaluation, but also promote the development of more powerful tools for modeling and analysis of software architectures.
引用
收藏
页码:270 / 282
页数:13
相关论文
共 37 条
[1]  
Al-Naeem T, 2005, PROC INT CONF SOFTW, P244
[2]   ArcheOpterix: An Extendable Tool for Architecture Optimization of AADL Models [J].
Aleti, Aldeida ;
Bjoernander, Stefan ;
Grunske, Lars ;
Meedeniya, Indika .
MOMPES: 2009 ICSE WORKSHOP ON MODEL-BASED METHODOLOGIES FOR PERVASIVE AND EMBEDDED SOFTWARE, 2009, :61-71
[3]   Performance analysis at the software architectural design level [J].
Aquilani, F ;
Balsamo, S ;
Inverardi, P .
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION, 2001, 45 (2-3) :147-178
[4]  
Babar M. A., 2004, P AUSTR SOFTW ENG C, V2004, P309, DOI DOI 10.1109/ASWEC.2004.1290484
[5]  
Bachmann F, 2001, PROC INT CONF SOFTW, P745
[6]  
Barbacci M., 1995, QUALITY ATTRIBUTES T
[7]  
Barbacci MarioR., 1998, Steps in an Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method: Quality Attribute Models and Analysis, P219
[8]  
Bosch J, 2000, DESIGN USE SOFTWARE
[9]  
Chung L, 2009, LECT NOTES COMPUT SC, V5600, P363, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-02463-4_19
[10]  
Clements P., 2001, EVALUATING SOFTWARE