• 中国出版政府奖提名奖

    中国百强科技报刊

    湖北出版政府奖

    中国高校百佳科技期刊

    中国最美期刊

    留言板

    尊敬的读者、作者、审稿人, 关于本刊的投稿、审稿、编辑和出版的任何问题, 您可以本页添加留言。我们将尽快给您答复。谢谢您的支持!

    姓名
    邮箱
    手机号码
    标题
    留言内容
    验证码

    基于复用的软件构架评估方法及其在嫦娥工程中的应用

    胡智新 李春来 欧阳自远

    胡智新, 李春来, 欧阳自远, 2006. 基于复用的软件构架评估方法及其在嫦娥工程中的应用. 地球科学, 31(3): 384-388.
    引用本文: 胡智新, 李春来, 欧阳自远, 2006. 基于复用的软件构架评估方法及其在嫦娥工程中的应用. 地球科学, 31(3): 384-388.
    HU Zhi-xin, LI Chun-lai, OUYANG Zi-yuan, 2006. Reuse-Based Software Architecture Evaluation Methods. Earth Science, 31(3): 384-388.
    Citation: HU Zhi-xin, LI Chun-lai, OUYANG Zi-yuan, 2006. Reuse-Based Software Architecture Evaluation Methods. Earth Science, 31(3): 384-388.

    基于复用的软件构架评估方法及其在嫦娥工程中的应用

    基金项目: 

    中国科学院知识创新工程项目 KGCX2SW4153

    详细信息
      作者简介:

      胡智新(1974-), 男, 博士生, 主要研究领域为软件工程、软件体系结构和软件产品线. E-mail: hzx@bao.ac.cn

    • 中图分类号: TP301

    Reuse-Based Software Architecture Evaluation Methods

    • 摘要: 针对目前软件构架评估方法未考虑复用构架评估知识的局限性, 提出一种新的、基于构架评估知识复用的软件构架评估模式(包括软件构架评估方法元模型和应用框架).运用一致的评估元模型, 建立高层模型, 辅助构架评估决策; 并在应用框架支持下, 系统地复用评估历史数据, 将SAEM的活动整合为一个系统的、可复用的、可管理的过程.该方法已成功应用于中国探月工程地面应用系统的软件构架评估, 降低了深空探测航天复杂系统的研制风险.

       

    • 图  1  软件构架评估元模型

      Fig.  1.  Meta-model of SAEM

      图  2  软件构架评估元模型应用概念图

      Fig.  2.  Application of meta-model of SAEM

      图  3  软件构架评估应用框架的过程模型图

      Fig.  3.  Process model for application framework of software architecture evaluation

      表  1  基于场景的软件构架评估方法对比分析

      Table  1.   Analysis result of scenario-based software architecture evaluation methods

      表  2  标注了优先级的GSDAS效用树子集

      Table  2.   Prioritized utility tree subset of GSDAS

    • [1] Abowd, G., Bass, L., Clements, P., et al., 1996. Recommended best industrial practices for system architecture evaluation. Technique Report, CMU/SEI-96-TR-025.
      [2] Barbacci, M., 2003a. Using the architecture tradeoff analysis method (ATAM) to evaluate the software architecture for a product line of avionics systems: A case study. Technique Report, CMU/SEI-2003-TN-012, SEI, Carnegie Mellon University. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/03.reports/03tn012.html.
      [3] Barbacci, M., 2003b. Quality attribute workshops (QAWs). Third Edition. Technique Report, CMU/SEI-2003-TR-016, SEI, Carnegie Mellon University. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/03.reports/03tr016.html.
      [4] Bass, L., Clement, P., Kazman, R., 1998. Software architecture in practice. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
      [5] Clement, P., 2000. Active review for intermediate designs. Technique Report, CMU/SEI-2000-TN-009, SEI, Carnegie Mellon University. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/00.reports/00tn009.html.
      [6] Clement, P., Kazman, R., Kelein, M., 2002. Evaluating software architectures: Methods and case studies. Addison Wesley, MA.
      [7] IEEE, 1998. IEEE glossary of software engineering terminology, 610.12-1990.
      [8] Kazman, R., Abowd, G., Bass, L., et al., 1994. SAAM: A method for quality through formal technical review. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Software Engineering, Sorrento, Italy, May, 113-122.
      [9] Kazman, R., Abowd, G., Bass, L., et al., 1996. Scenariobased analysis of software architecture. IEEE Software, 13 (6): 47-55. doi: 10.1109/52.542294
      [10] Kazman, R., 1998. The architecture tradeoff analysis method. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (ICECCS98).
      [11] Kazman, R., Asundi, J., Klein, M., 2001. Quantifying the costs and benefits of architectural decisions. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 23), Toronto, Canada, May, 297-306.
      [12] Kruchten, P. B., 1995. The 4+1 view model of architecture. IEEE Software, 12 (6): 42-50.
      [13] Li, W., Henry, S., 1993. Object-oriented metrics that predict maintainability. Systems and Software, 23 (2): 111-122.
      [14] Moore, M., Kazman, R., Klein, M., et al., 2003. Quantifying the value of architecture design decisions: Lessons from the field. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 25), Portland, Oregon, May.
      [15] Parnas, D. L., Weiss, D., 1985. Active design review: Principles and practices. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Software Engineering.
      [16] Smith, C. U., Woodside, M., 1999. Performance validation at early stages of software development. The Journal of Systems and Software. http://www.perfeng.com/papers/smitwood.pdf.
      [17] Williams, L. G., Smith, C. U., 2003. PASASM: A method for the performance assessment of software architecture. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP2002), Rome, Italy, July.
    • 加载中
    图(3) / 表(2)
    计量
    • 文章访问数:  3151
    • HTML全文浏览量:  80
    • PDF下载量:  2
    • 被引次数: 0
    出版历程
    • 收稿日期:  2005-12-28
    • 刊出日期:  2006-05-25

    目录

      /

      返回文章
      返回