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

Volume 31 Issue 3

May 2006

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > Earth Science > 2006 > 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.

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.

PDF( 310 KB)

Reuse-Based Software Architecture Evaluation Methods

1.
National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100012, China
2.
Graduate School, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100039, China

Received Date: 2005-12-28
Publish Date: 2006-05-25

Abstract

Abstract

The limit of the current scenario-based software architecture evaluation (SAE) is not taken into account the knowledge reuse of SAE. A new reused-based software architecture evaluation pattern, which includes meta-model and application framework, is proposed in this paper for integrating the SAE into a systematic and reusable procedure. Exploiting the meta-model and the application framework of SAE can make decision of SAE in high-level and reuse the historic data of SAE. Finally, this pattern is successfully applied and validated in the software architecture of the ground system for data, research and application of lunar exploration program of China. The pattern reduces the research risk of deep-space exploration complex system.
- software architecture,
- software architecture evaluation,
- software architecture evaluation patterns,
- scenario

FullText(HTML)

References(17)

References

Abowd, G., Bass, L., Clements, P., et al., 1996. Recommended best industrial practices for system architecture evaluation. Technique Report, CMU/SEI-96-TR-025.
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.
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.
Bass, L., Clement, P., Kazman, R., 1998. Software architecture in practice. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
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.
Clement, P., Kazman, R., Kelein, M., 2002. Evaluating software architectures: Methods and case studies. Addison Wesley, MA.
IEEE, 1998. IEEE glossary of software engineering terminology, 610.12-1990.
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.
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).
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.
Kruchten, P. B., 1995. The 4+1 view model of architecture. IEEE Software, 12 (6): 42-50.
Li, W., Henry, S., 1993. Object-oriented metrics that predict maintainability. Systems and Software, 23 (2): 111-122.
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.
Parnas, D. L., Weiss, D., 1985. Active design review: Principles and practices. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Software Engineering.
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.
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.