A family of languages for architecture constraint specification

Tibermacine, Chouki; Fleurquin, Régis; Sadou, Salah

doi:10.1016/j.jss.2009.11.736

Cited by 20 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The lack of one of these two aspects could lead to undetected StAD violations. In the literature, the existing work about ADLs [1,13] or architectural constraints [37,38] focus solely on the structural consistency aspect. The validity of StADs is maintained as long as concerned elements structurally conform to their playing roles in the architecture.…”

Section: Illustration and Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Being one of the first work dealing with StAD conformance checking, Tibermacine et al [37,38] propose a family of architectural constraint languages to describe the structural part of StAD. Architectural constraints are used as a means to formalize StADs.…”

Section: Ad Conformance Checkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first trend such as [38,39] focuses on the respect of the applied pattern in the architecture model. StADs take the form of architectural constraints describing the organisation imposed by the pattern.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Preserving architectural decisions through architectural patterns

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Architectural decisions have emerged as a means to maintain the quality of the architecture during its evolution. One of the most important decisions made by architects are those about the design approach such as the use of patterns or styles in the architecture. The structural nature of this type of decisions give them the potential to be controlled systematically. In the literature, there are some works on the automation of architectural decision violation checking. In this paper we show that these works do not allow to detect all possible architectural decision violations. To solve this problem we propose an approach which: i) describes architectural patterns that hold the architectural decision definition, ii) integrates architectural decisions into an architectural model and, iii) automates the architectural decision conformance checking. The approach is implemented using Eclipse Modeling Framework and its accompanying technologies. Starting from well-known architectural patterns, we show that we can formalize all those related to the structural aspect. Through two evaluations, we show that our approach can be adapted to different architecture paradigms and allows to detect more violations comparing to the existing approaches.

show abstract

Section: Illustration and Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ad Conformance Checkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Preserving architectural decisions through architectural patterns

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In business components, services represent traditional operations with a body containing the SCL code implementing the business logic. In constraint-components, the body contains the code of the constraint to be checked (specified in ACL [7] which is an adaptation of OCL).…”

Section: Constraint-components Vs Business Componentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Software Architecture Constraints as Customizable, Reusable and Composable Entities

Tibermacine

Dony

Sadou

et al. 2010

Software Architecture

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. One of the major advantages of component-based software engineering is the ability for developers to reuse and assemble software entities to build complex software. Whereas decomposition of software into components has been and is largely addressed for what concerns the business (functional) part of applications, this is not yet the case for what concerns their documentation (non-functional) part. In this paper, we propose a new and original solution to express component-based software non-functional documentation, and we will focus more especially on architecture constraints, which formalize parts of architecture decisions, as executable, customizable, reusable and composable building blocks represented by components. Component-based applications using business and constraint components can be modeled with CLACS, a dedicated ADL which is also introduced in the paper. Architecture constraints can be executed at design-time within CLACS. CLACS is implemented as a plugin in the Eclipse IDE.

show abstract

“…There are structural elements in software architecture that have been defined [12]. We also consider behavioral aspects ( Fig.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Business process and software architecture model co-evolution patterns

Jamshidi¹,

Pahl²

2012

2012 4th International Workshop on Modeling in Software Engineering (MISE)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Software systems are subject to change. To embrace change, the systems should be equipped with automated mechanisms. Business process and software architecture models are two artifacts that are subject to change in an interrelated manner that requires them co-evolve. As opposed to the traditional batch-based model transformation, we propose a comprehensive set of structural and behavioral evolution patterns that enable to incrementally reflect the impact of change of business processes to their associated architecture models by applying reusable patterns. A basis for automation is provided through a graph-based formalism.

show abstract

A family of languages for architecture constraint specification

Cited by 20 publications

References 30 publications

Preserving architectural decisions through architectural patterns

Preserving architectural decisions through architectural patterns

Software Architecture Constraints as Customizable, Reusable and Composable Entities

Business process and software architecture model co-evolution patterns

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About