Describing Fractal Processes with UML

  • Harald Störrle
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2188)


Component-based software has a self-similar structure on each level of abstraction, i.e. its structure is fractal. Traditional software processes, however, have a linear or iterated structure, and are thus not very well suited for component-based software development. Here, processes described by languages of patterns fit better.

To ensure a general understanding and easy applicability of processes patterns, I propose to (1) build on the well known description schemes for traditional product patterns and adapt them to the software process domain; and (2) use the description techniques and notions of the Unified Modeling Language (UML) is “the lingua franca of the software engineering community”. Some adaptations and extensions become necessary to both of these, however, and care has to be taken not to impede the goal of universal understandability.


Design Pattern Activity Diagram Process Pattern Pattern Language Process Fragment 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Thomas Allweyer and Peter Loos. Process Orientation in UML through Integration of Event-Driven Process Chains. In Pierre-Alain Muller and Jean Bézivin, editors, International Workshop ≪UML≫’98: Beyond the Notation, pages 183–193. Ecole Supérieure des Sciences Appliquées pour l’Ingénieur-Mulhouse, Université de Haute-Alsace, 1998.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Scott W. Ambler. More Process Patterns: Delivering Large-Scale Systems Using Object Technology. Cambridge University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alistair Barros, Keith Duddy, Michael Lawley, Zoran Milosevic, Kerry Raymond, and Andrew Wood. Processes, Roles and Events: UML Concepts for Enterprise Architecture. In Selic et al.[25], pages 62–77.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Klaus Bergner, Andreas Rausch, Marc Sihling, and Alexander Vilbig. A Componentware Development Methodology based on Process Patterns. In Joseph Yoder, editor, Proc. 5th Annual Conf. on the Pattern Languages of Programs (PLoP), 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christie Bolton and Jim Davies. On Giving a Behavioural Semantics to Activity Graphs. In Reggio et al.[23], pages 17–22. Also appeared as Technical Report No. 0006 of the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München, Fakultät für Informatik, October 2000.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Frank Buschmann, Regine Meunier, Hans Rohnert, Peter Sommerlad, and Michael Stal. Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture. A System of Patterns. John Wiley &; Sons Ltd., 1998.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    James O. Coplien. A Generative Development-Process Pattern. In Coplien and Schmidt[8], pages 183–238.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    James O. Coplien and Douglas C. Schmidt, editors. Pattern Languages of Program Design. Addison-Wesley, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Desmond Francis D’Souza and Alan Cameron Wills. Objects, Components and Frameworks with UML. The Catalysis Approach. Addison-Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brian Foote. A Fractal Model of the Lifecycle of Reusable Objects. In James O. Coplien, Russel Winder, and Susan Hutz, editors, OOPLSA’93 Workshop on Process Standards and Iteration, 1993.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brian Foote and William F. Opdyke. Lifecycle and Refactoring Patterns That Support Evolution and Reuse. In Coplien and Schmidt[8], pages 239–258.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Erich Gamma, Richard Helm, Ralph Johnson, and John Vlissides. Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley, 1995.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Neil B. Harrison. Organizational Patterns for Teams. Monticello, Illinois, 1995.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wolfgang Hesse. From WOON to EOS: New development methods require a new software process model. In A. Smolyaninov and A. Shestialtynow, editors, Proc. 1 st and 2 nd Intl. Ws. on OO Technology (WOON’96/WOON’97), pages 88–101, 1997.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ivar Jacobson, Grady Booch, and James Rumbaugh. The Unified Software Development Process. Addison-Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dirk Jäger, Ansgar Schleicher, and Bernhard Westfechtel. Using UML for Software Process Modeling. Number 1687 in LNCS, pages 91-108, 1998.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marc I. Keller and H. Dieter Rombach. Comparison of Software Process Descriptions. pages 7–18, Hakodate, Japan, October 1990. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Alexander Knapp. A Formal Approach to Object-Oriented Software Engineering. PhD thesis, LMU München, Institut für Informatik, May 2000.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ralf Kneuper. Requirements on Software Process Technology from the Viewpoint of Commercial Software Development. Number 1487 in LNCS, pages 111–115. Springer Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Meir M. Lehman. Programs, life cycles, and laws of software evolution. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 68(9), September 1980.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification (draft, version 1.4). Technical report, Object Management Group, February 2001. Available at
  22. 22.
    Ruben Prieto-Diaz. Classification of Reusable Modules, volume I-Concepts and Models, pages 99–124. ACM Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gianna Reggio, Alexander Knapp, Bernhard Rumpe, Bran Selic, and Roel Wieringa, editors. Dynamic Behavior in UML Models: Semantic Questions. Workshop Proceedings, Oktober 2000. Also appeared as Technical Report No. 0006 of the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München, Fakultät für Informatik, October 2000.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Colette Rolland and Naveen Prakash. Reusable Process Chunks. Number 720 in LNCS, pages 655–666. Springer Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bran Selic, Stuart Kent, and Andy Evans, editors. Proc. 3rd Intl. Conf. ≪UML≫ 2000—Advancing the Standard, number 1939 in LNCS. Springer Verlag, October 2000.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Harald Stärrle. Models of Software Architecture. Design and Analysis with UML and Petri-nets. PhD thesis, LMU München, Institut für Informatik, December 2000. In print, ISBN 3-8311-1330-0.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bruce Whitenack. RAPPeL: A Requirements-Analysis-Process Pattern Language. In Coplien and Schmidt[8], pages 259–292.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harald Störrle
    • 1
  1. 1.Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations