Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Software Architecture pp 221–273Cite as

Evaluating Software Architecture

  • Chapter

  • 2492 Accesses

Part of the book series: Advanced Topics in Science and Technology in China ((ATSTC))

Abstract

If you are just a researcher to software, maybe it is enough when you finish describing architecture or communicate with other guys involved in software development. However, it is mandatory to figure out whether the architecture will lead a success. After all, nobody will reject to improve the chance of win before taking a bet, normally with a great fortune in terms of millions of dollars as well as company’ s reputation and future. Therefore, evaluation is necessary, appearing as a bridge between architecture and software engineering’s ultimate goals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abowd, G., et al. Recommended Best Industrial Practice for Software Architecture Evaluation, Techincal Report, CMU/SEI-96-TR-025, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Allen, R. & Garlan, D. A Formal Basis for Architectural Connection. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 1997 (6): 213–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Asundi, J., Kazman, R. & Klein, M. Using Economic Considerations to Choose among Architecture Design Alternatives, Techincal Report, CMU/SEI-2001-TR-035, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Babar, M. A. & Gorton, I. Comparison of Scenario-Based Software Architecture Evaluation Methods. In: Software Engineering Conference, 2004. 11th Asia-Pacific, p p. 600–607.2004.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bachmann, F., Bass, L. & Klein, M. Preliminary-Design of Arche: A Software Architecture Design Assistant, Techincal Report, CMU/ SEI-2003-TR-021, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Barbacci, M., et al. Steps in an Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Mehtod: Quality Attribute Models and Analysis, Techincal Report, CMU/ SEI-97-TR-029, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bass, L., Clements, P. & Kazman, R. Software Architecture in Practice, 1st ed.: Addison Wesley/Pearson 1998d.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bass, L., Clements, P. & Kazman, R. Software Architecture in Practice, 2nd ed.: Addison Wesley/Pearson 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bengtsson, P. & Bosch, J. Scenario-Based Software Architecture Reengineering. Proceedings Fifth International Conference on Software Reuse, Victoria, BC, Canada.1998:308–317.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bengtsson, P. & Bosch, J. Architecture Level Prediction of Software Maintenance. Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 1999: 139–147.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Boehm, B., Brown, J. & Lipow, M. Quantitative Evaluation of Software Quality. Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on software engineering; San Francisco, California, United States.1976:592–605.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Boehm, B. A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 1986(11): 14–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bot, S., Lung, C. H. & Farrell, M. A Stakeholder-Centric Software Architecture Analysis. Approach Joint proceedings of the second international software architecture workshop (ISAW-2), San Francisco, California, United States.1996:152–154.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Brown, W., et al. Antipatterns: RefactoringSoftware, Architectures, and Projects in Crisis. New York: John Wiley & Sons.1998.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chidamber, S. R. & Kemerer, C. F. Towards a Metrics Suite for Object Oriented Design. Conference proceedings on Object-oriented programming systems, languages, and applications. Phoenix, Arizona, United States.1991:197–211.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Clements, P. Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs, Techincal Report, CMU/SEI-2000-TN-009 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Clements, P., Kazman, R. & Klein, M. Evaluating Software Architectures: Methods and Case Studies. Pearson Education.2003.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dobrica, L. & Niemela, E. A Survey on Software Architecture Analysis Methods. Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on 2002(28): 638–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Duenas, J. C., de Oliveira, W. L. & de ia Puente, J. A. A Software Architecture Evaluation Model. In: Development and Evolution of Software Architectures for Product Families. Second International ESPIRIT ARES Workshop. Proceedings (van der Linden, F., ed., pp. 148–157. Springer-Verlag, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.1998.

    Google Scholar 

  20. IEEE. IEEE Standard Dictionary of Measures to Produce Reliable Software. 1989a.

    Google Scholar 

  21. IEEE. IEEE Guide for the Use of IEEE Standard Dictionary of Measures to Produce Reliable Software.1989b.

    Google Scholar 

  22. IEEE. IEEE Standard for a Software Quality Metrics Methodology. 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Inverardi, P., Wolf, A. L. & Yankelevich, D. Static Checking of System Behaviors Using Derived Component Assumptions. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 2000(9): 239–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kazman, R., et al. Saam: A Method for Analyzing the Properties of Software Architectures. Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Software Engineering, Sorrento, Italy.1994:81–90.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kazman, R. Tool Support for Architecture Analysis and Design. In: Joint proceedings of the second international software architecture workshop (ISAW-2) and international workshop on multiple perspectives in software development (Viewpoints’ 96) on SIGSOFT’ 96 workshops pp. 94–97. ACM Press San Francisco, California, United States 1996a.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kazman, R., et al. Scenario-Based Analysis of Software Architecture. Software, IEEE 1996b(13): 47–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kazman, R., et al. The Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method. Proceedings Fourth IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems. ICECCS’ 98, Monterey, CA, USA.1998:68–78.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kazman, R., et al. Experience with Performing Architecture Tradeoff Analysis. Proceedings of the 1999 International Conference on Software Engineering. Acm. 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kazman, R., Carriére, S. J. & Woods, S. G. Toward a Discipline of Scenario-Based Architectural Engineering. Annals Of Software Engineering 2000(9): 5–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kazman, R., Asundi, J. & Klein, M. Making Architecture Design Decisions: An Economic Approach, Techincal Report, CMU/SEI-2001-TR-035, 2001a.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kazman, R., Asundi, J. & Klein, M. Quantifying the Costs and Benefits of Architectural Decisions 2001b:297–306.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Klein, M., et al. A Practitioner’s Handbook for Real-Time Analysis. Norwell, MA, USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.1993.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Liathi, J., et al. Performance Bounds for Distributed Systems with Workload Variabilities and Uncertainties. Parallel Computing 1997 (22): 1789–1806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lassing, N., Rijsenbrij, D. & Viliet, H. On Software Architecture Analysis of Flexibility, Complexity of Changes: Size Isn’t Everything. Proceeding of the Second Nordic Software Architecture Workshop (NOSA’99). 1999:1103–1581.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Li, W. & Henry, S. Object-Oriented Metrics That Predict Maintainability. Journal of Systems and Software 1993(23): 111–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lung C. H., et al. An Approach to Software Architecture Analysis for Evolution and Reusability In: Proceedings of the 1997 conference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative research, CASCON’ 97, pp. 15–26. IBM Press, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.1997.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Maheshwari, P. & Teoh, A. Supporting Atam with a Collaborative Web-Based Software Architecture Evaluation Tool. Science of Computer Programming 2005(57): 109–128.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  38. Majumdar, S., et al. Performance Bounds for Concurrent Software with Rendezvous. Performance Evaluation 1991(13): 207–236.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  39. Marco, A. D. & Inverardi, P. Compositional Generation of Software Architecture Performance Qn Models. Proceedings. on the Fourth Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA 2004), Oslo, Norway.2004:37–46.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Molter, G. Integrating Saam in Domain-Centric and Reuse-Based Development Processes. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Nordic Workshop on Software Architecture, Ronneby, Sweden.1999.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Parnas, D. L. & Weiss, D. M. Active Design Reviews: Principles and Practice. Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Software engineering Longdon, England.1985:132–136.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Smith, C. U. & Williams, L. G. Software Performance Antipatterns. Proceedings of WOSP2000: Second International Workshop on Software and Performance, Ottawa, Ont., Canada.2000:127–136.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Smith, C. U. & Williams, L. G. Performance Solutions: A Practical Guide to Creating Responsive, Scalable Software: Addison-Wesley.2001.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Uchitel, S., Kramer, J. & Magee, J. Behaviour Model Elaboration Using Partial Labelled Transition Systems. Proceedings of the 9th European software engineering conference held jointly with l lth ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of software engineering Helsinki, Finland.2003:19–27.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Williams, L. G. & Smith, C. U. Pasa: An Architectural Approach to Fixing Software Performance Problems. In: Proc. of Int. Conference of the Computer Measurement Group, Reno, USA.2002a.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Williams, L. G. & Smith, C. U. Pasa: A Method for the Performance Assessment of Software Architecture. In: Proc. of the 3rd Workshop on Software Performance, Rome, Italy.2002b.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Zhang, B., Ding, K. & Li, J. An Xml-Message Based Architecture Description Language and Architectural Mismatch Checking, Proceedings of the 25th International Computer Software and Applications Conference on Invigorating Software Development (COMPSAC 2001), Beijing, China. 2001: 561–566.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Zhejiang University Press, Hangzhou and Springer-Verlag GmbH Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(2008). Evaluating Software Architecture. In: Software Architecture. Advanced Topics in Science and Technology in China. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74343-9_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74343-9_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-74342-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-74343-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation