Identifying Evolvability for Integration

  • L. Davis
  • Rose Gamble
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2255)


The seamless integration of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) components offers many benefits associated with reuse. Even with successful composite applications, unexpected interoperability conflicts can arise when COTS products are upgraded, new components are needed, and the application requirements change. Recent approaches to integration follow pattern-based design principles to construct integration architecture for the composite application. This integration architecture provides a design perspective for addressing the problematic interactions among components within the application environment. However, little attention has been paid to the evolvability of these architectures and their embedded functionality. In this paper, we discuss the need for design traceability based on the history of interoperability conflicts and resolution decisions that comprise the integration architecture. Additionally, we advocate that certain functional aspects of a pattern can be pinpointed to resolve a conflict. Combining these two aspects of integration architecture design, we illustrate that often evolution is possible with minimal changes to the integration solution.


Software Architecture Integration Solution Integration Element Control Transfer Composite Application 
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.
    Shaw, M., Garlan, D.: Software Architecture: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, (1996).zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abd-Allah, A.: Composing Heterogeneous Software Architectures. Ph. D. Dissertation, Computer Science, University of Southern California, (1996).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Garlan, D., Allen, A., Ockerbloom, J.: Architectural Mismatch, or Why it is hard to build systems out of existing parts. In, 17th International Conference on Software Engineering. Seattle, WA, (1995).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shaw, M., Clements, P.: A Field Guide to Boxology: Preliminary Classification of Architectural Styles for Software Systems. In, 1st International Computer Software and Applications Conference. Washington, D.C., 6–17, (1997).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Allen, R., Garlan, D.: A Formal Basis for Architectural Connection. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodologies, 6(3): 213–49, (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garlan, D.: Higher-Order Connectors, Workshop on Compositional Software Architectures. Monterey, CA, January 6–7, (1998).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Keshav, R., Gamble, R.: Towards a Taxonomy of Architecture Integration Strategies. 3rd International Software Architecture Workshop, 1–2, (1998).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Medvidovic, N., Gamble, R., Rosenblum, D.: Towards Software Multioperability: Bridging Heterogeneous Software Interoperability Platforms. 4th International Software Architecture Workshop, (2000).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mehta, N., Medvidovic, N., Phadke, S.: Towards a Taxonomy of Software Connectors. In, 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering, (2000).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Buschmann, F., Meunier, R., Rohnert, H., Sommerlad, P., Stal, M.: Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture: A System of Patterns. John Wiley & Sons, (1996).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mularz. D.: Pattern-based integration architectures. PloP, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schmidt, D.C., Stal, M., Rohnert, H., Buschmann, F.: Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture: Patterns for Concurrent and Networked Objects. Wiley & Sons, (2000).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lutz, J. C.: EAI Architecture Patterns. EAI Journal, (2000).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design Patterns Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley, (1995).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    van der Hoek, A., Heimbigner, D., Wolf, A.: Capturing Architectural Configurability: Variants, Options, and Evolution. Technical Report CU-CS-895-99, Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, December (1999).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oreizy, P., Medvidovic, N., and Taylor, R.: Architecture-Based Runtime Software Evolution. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software Engineering, (1998), 177–186.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Ommering, R., van der Linden, F., Kramer, J., Magee, J.: The Koala Component Model For Consumer Electronics Software. IEEE Computer, Vol. 33, No. 3, (2000), pp. 78–85.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shaw, M., DeLine, R., Klein, D., Ross, T., Young, D., Zelesnik, G.: Abstractions For Software Architecture And Tools To Support Them. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 21(4), (1995), 314–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lung, C.-H., Bot, S., Kalaichelvan, K., Kazman, R.: An Approach to Software Architecture Analysis for Evolution and Reusability. Proceedings of CASCON’ 97, (Toronto, ON), (1997).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Davis, L., Gamble, R., Payton, J., Jonsdottir, G., Underwood, D.: A Notation for Problematic Architecture Interactions. In Foundations of Software Engineering’ 01, (2001).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kazman, R., Klein, M., Clements, P.: ATAM: Method for Architecture Evaluation. Carnegie Mellon University, (2000).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Payton, J., Davis, L., Underwood, D., Gamble, R.: Using XML for an Architecture Interaction Conspectus. In XML Technologies and Software Engineering (2001).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Davis, L., Gamble, R., Payton, J.: The Impact of Component Architectures on Interoperability. Journal of Systems and Software, (to appear 2002).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Keshav, R.: Architecture Integration Elements: Connectors that Form Middleware. M.S. Thesis, Dept. of Mathematical & Computer Sciences: University of Tulsa, (1999).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Keshav, R., Gamble, R.: Towards a Taxonomy of Architecture Integration Strategies. 3rd International Software Architecture Workshop, 1–2, (1998).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Payton, J., Gamble, R., Kimsen, S., Davis, L.: The Opportunity for Formal Models of Integration. In, 2nd International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration, (2000).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Davis
    • 1
  • Rose Gamble
    • 1
  1. 1.Software Engineering & Architecture Team Department of Mathematical and Computer SciencesUniversity of TulsaTulsa

Personalised recommendations