2012
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-27997-3_1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An Evaluation of Mashup Tools Based on Support for Heterogeneous Mashup Components

Abstract: Abstract. Mashups are built by combining building blocks, which are commonly referred to as mashup components. These components are characterized by a high level of heterogeneity in terms of technologies, access methods, and the behavior they may exhibit within a mashup. Abstracting away this heterogeneity is the mission of the so-called mashup tools aiming at automating or semi-automating mashup development to serve non-programmers. The challenge is to ensure this abstraction mechanism does not limit the supp… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
2

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…On the basis of these scenarios, the strengths and weakness of the development of mashup tools were discussed. On one hand, Aghaee and Pautasso presented an evaluation of mashup development tools based on support for heterogeneous mashup components in terms of technologies, access methods, and the behavior they exhibit within a mashup application. This evaluation took into account criteria of five mashup tools, such as data format, access method, output, and behavior.…”
Section: Evaluation and Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the basis of these scenarios, the strengths and weakness of the development of mashup tools were discussed. On one hand, Aghaee and Pautasso presented an evaluation of mashup development tools based on support for heterogeneous mashup components in terms of technologies, access methods, and the behavior they exhibit within a mashup application. This evaluation took into account criteria of five mashup tools, such as data format, access method, output, and behavior.…”
Section: Evaluation and Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other surveys of the mashup literature [2] have developed a number of evaluation criteria and identified shortcomings of existing approaches. Among these shortcomings are lacks of support for (i) event-based behavior, (ii) component discovery features, and (iii) language-dependent mashup components.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A uniform meta-model adapts heterogeneous mashup component interfaces to a common interface, and its aspect of being easy-to-understand is thus defined by how much its interface conceals the information about the underlying component technologies. This challenge is not fully addressed by the state-of-the art mashup tools as the majority of them do not support all types of mashup components [2].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%