Advertisement

Pattern-Based Architectural Design Driven by Quality Properties: A Platform to Model Scientific Calculation

  • Francisca Losavio
  • Nicole Levy
  • Parinaz Davari
  • François Colonna
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3527)

Abstract

There is a general agreement on the fact that architectural design is crucial to build software that meets initial needs. Nonfunctional properties play an important role, however methods are not still mature. We have defined a pattern-based architectural design method driven by quality properties. Our goal is to apply it to design a platform to model scientific calculation. We do not intend to re-write a new Simulation Code (Quantum Chemistry, Molecular Dynamics etc ...) nor to integrate various existing Codes inside an external envelope, with some scripting language, which is the usual practice in most of these calculation environments. Our intention is rather to spend the necessary time to design rationally the architecture and the objects of a modeling framework. In this platform the architecture is crucial to handle a unique calculation structure, shared by all the components of the platform.

Keywords

Quality Characteristic Quality Property Quality Model Software Architecture Architectural Design 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrial, J.R.: The B Book Assigning Programs to Meanings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alencar, P.S.C., Cowan, D.D., Lucena, C.J.P.: A Formal Approach to Architectural Design Patterns. In: Gaudel, M.-C., Woodcock, J.C.P. (eds.) FME 1996. LNCS, vol. 1051, pp. 576–594. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alexander, C.: The timeless way of building. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1979)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bosch, J.: Design and Use of Software Architecture. Addison Wesley, Harlow (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buschmann, F., Meunier, R., Rhonert, H., Sommerlad, P., Stal, M.: Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture. A System of Patterns. John Wiley & Sons, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chung, L., Cooper, K., Yi, A.: Developing adaptable software architectures using design patterns: an NFR approach. Computer Standards & Interfaces 25, 253–260 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clements, P., Kazman, R., Klein, M.: Evaluating Software Architecture. Methods and Case Studies. SEI Series in Software Engineering. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clements, P., Bachmann, F., Bass, L., Garlan, D., Ivers, J., Little, R., Nord, R., Stafford, J.: Documenting Software Architectures: Views and Beyond, September 2002. Addison Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R.: Design Patterns. In: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software, Addison Wesley, Reading (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gross, D., Yu, E.: From Non-Functional Requirements to Design Through Patterns. Requirements Engineering Journal 6, 18–36 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grnbacher, P., Egyed, A., Medvidovic, N.: Reconciling Software Requirements and Architectures: the CBSP Approach. Journal of Software and Systems Modeling (SOSYM) (to appear)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heisel, M., Souquires, J.: A Method for Requirements Elicitation and Formal Specification. In: Akoka, J., Bouzeghoub, M., Comyn-Wattiau, I., Métais, E. (eds.) ER 1999. LNCS, vol. 1728, pp. 309–325. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heisel, M., Souquires, J.: A heuristic algorithm to detect feature interactions in requirements. In: Gilmore, S., Ryan, M. (eds.) Language Constructs for Describing Features, pp. 143–162. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ISO/IEC 9126-1. Software Engineering - Product Quality. Part 1: Quality Model (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jackson, M.: Problem Frames. Addison Wesley, Harlow (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Klein, M., Kazman, R.: Attribute-Based Architectural Styles. CMU/SEI-99-TR-022, ESC-TR-99-022 (October 1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krutchen, P.: The Rational Unified Process. Addison Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lalanda, P.: Shared repository pattern. In: PLOP 1998 (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    van Lamsweerde, A.: Elaborating security requirements by construction of intentional anti-models. In: 26th ICSE 2004, Edinburgh, pp. 148–157 (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Lamsweerde, A.: From system goals to software architecture. In: Bernardo, M., Inverardi, P. (eds.) SFM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2804, pp. 25–43. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Levy, N., Marcano, R., Souquires, J.: From requirements to formal specification using UML and B. In: International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies CompSysTech 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liu, J., Issarny, V.: QoS-aware Service Location in Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks. In: MDM 2001, Berkeley, C.A, USA (January 2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Losavio, F., Chirinos, L., Prez, M.: Quality Models to Design Software Architecture. In: IEEE TOOLS, Zurich, March 2001, pp. 123–135 (2001)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Losavio, F., Chirinos, L., Lvy, N., Ramdane-Cherif, A.: Quality Characteristics for Software Architecture. Journal of Object Technology 2(2), 133–150 (2003), http://www.jot.fm/issues/issue_2003_03/article2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Losavio, F., Chirinos, L., Matteo, A.: Identifying Quality-Based Requirements. Information Systems Management (ISYM) 21(1), 15–21 (Winter 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Losavio, F., Chirinos, L., Matteo, A., Lvy, N., Ramdane-Cherif, A.: Designing Quality Architecture: Incorporating ISO Standards into the Unified Process. Information Systems Management (ISYM) 21(1), 27–44 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Marcano, R., Levy, N.: Using B formal specifications for analysis and verfication of UML/OCL models. In: Workshop on consistency problems in UML-based software development. 5th International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language, Dresden, Germany (October 2002)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Poladian, V., Sousa, J.P., Garlan, D., Shaw, M.: Dynamic Reconfiguration of Resource-Aware Services. In: 26th ICSE 2004, Edinburgh, pp. 604–613 (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shaw, M., Garlan, D.: Software Architecture. Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline. Prentice Hall, New Jersey (1996)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schmidt, D., Stal, M., Rhonert, H., Buschmann, F.: Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture. In: Patterns for Concurrent and Networked Objects, vol. 2. Wiley, Chichester (2000)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    UML Resource Page, http://www.omg.org/UML
  32. 32.
    Zarras, A., Issarny, V.: Quality Analysis of Enterprise Information Systems. In: Ezhilchelvan, P., Romanovsky, A. (eds.) Concurrency in Dependable Systems, pp. 127–146. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (2002) ISBN 1-4020-7043-8Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francisca Losavio
    • 1
  • Nicole Levy
    • 2
  • Parinaz Davari
    • 2
  • François Colonna
    • 3
  1. 1.LaTecS Laboratory, Centro ISYSUniversidad Central de Venezuela 
  2. 2.Laboratoire PRISMUniversité de Versailles St Quentin 
  3. 3.Laboratoire de Chimie ThóriqueUniversité Paris VI 

Personalised recommendations