Advertisement

Exogenous and Endogenous Extensions of Architectural Types

  • Marco Bernardo
  • Francesco Franzè
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2315)

Abstract

The problem of formalizing architectural styles has been recently tackled with the introduction of the concept of architectural type. The internal behavior of the system components can vary from instance to instance of an architectural type in a controlled way, which preserves the absence of deadlock related architectural mismatches proved via the architectural compatibility and interoperability checks. In this paper we extend the notion of architectural type by permitting a controlled variability of the component topology as well. This is achieved by means of two kinds of topological extensions: exogenous and endogenous. An exogenous extension consists of attaching a set of newtop ology compliant components to a set of already existing components. An endogenous extension consists of replacing a set of already existing components with a set of newtop ology compliant components. We showthat such a variability of the topology is still manageable from the analysis viewpoint.

Keywords

Software Architecture Architectural Style Simple Interaction Internal Behavior Architectural Type 
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.
    G.D. Abowd, R. Allen, D. Garlan, “Formalizing Style to Understand Descriptions of Software Architecture”, in ACM Trans. on Software Engineering and Methodology 4:319–364, 1995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Allen, D. Garlan, “A Formal Basis for Architectural Connection”, in ACM Trans. on Software Engineering and Methodology 6:213–249, 1997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Allen, D. Garlan, “A Case Study in Architectural Modelling: The AEGIS System”, in Proc. of IWSSD-8, 1998Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Bernardo, P. Ciancarini, L. Donatiello, “On the Formalization of Architectural Types with Process Algebras”, in Proc. of FSE-8, 2000Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Bernardo, P. Ciancarini, L. Donatiello, “Detecting Architectural Mismatches in Process Algebraic Descriptions of Software Systems”, in Proc. of WICSA 2001Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    T.R. Dean, J.R. Cordy, “A Syntactic Theory of Software Architecture”, in IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering 21:302–313, 1995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Milner, “Communication and Concurrency”, Prentice Hall, 1989Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Moriconi, X. Qian, R.A. Riemenschneider, “Correct Architecture Refinement”, in IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering 21:356–372, 1995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D.E. Perry, A.L. Wolf, “Foundations for the Study of Software Architecture”, in ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 17:40–52, 1992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Shaw, D. Garlan, “Software Architecture: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline”, Prentice Hall, 1996Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Bernardo
    • 1
  • Francesco Franzè
    • 1
  1. 1.Centro per l’Applicazione delle Scienze e Tecnologie dell’InformazioneUniversità di UrbinoItaly

Personalised recommendations