On the Symbiosis of Aspect-Oriented Requirements and Architectural Descriptions

Silva, Lyrene F.; Batista, Thaís; Garcia, Alessandro; Medeiros, Ana Luisa; Minora, Leonardo

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-76811-1_5

Cited by 13 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, the requirements documents and maintenance changes have not been influenced by the AORE approaches examined in this study. Finally, each of the examined AORE approaches have been extensively peer-reviewed and validated through various publications [4,5,14,15,16,17]. Therefore, we can be sure that these approaches are strong candidates for such a study.…”

Section: Threats Arising From Chosen Artefacts and Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The AOVG [16,17] approach proposes that aspects can be identified during goal-oriented requirements analysis, from the integrated Goal and Softgoal Interdependency Graphs (G/SIG), as goals/tasks which contribute to more than one other goal.…”

Section: Aov-graphmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since we are primarily interested in evaluating semantics-vs. syntax-based composition mechanisms in AORE, we have chosen two representative syntax-based approaches from contemporary AORE which provide good support for composition (some prominent AORE approaches, e.g., Theme/Doc [2] were not selected as they postpone the composition to the design stage). We have selected one approach from the goal-based category -the AO Requirements Models with V-graphs approach (AOVG) [16,17], and one from the viewpoint-based category -the AORE with Arcade approach [14]. While the AOVG approach uses some semantic elements in the compositions, such as term dictionaries (along with string-based name matching of syntactic compositions), the Arcade approach uses a well defined but purely syntax-based composition.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Semantic vs. syntactic compositions in aspect-oriented requirements engineering

Chitchyan

Greenwood

Sampaio

et al. 2009

Proceedings of the 8th ACM International Conference on Aspect-Oriented Software Development

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most current aspect composition mechanisms rely on syntactic references to the base modules or wildcard mechanisms quantifying over such syntactic references in pointcut expressions. This leads to the well-known problem of pointcut fragility. Semantics-based composition mechanisms aim to alleviate such fragility by focusing on the meaning and intention of the composition hence avoiding strong syntactic dependencies on the base modules. However, to date, there are no empirical studies validating whether semanticsbased composition mechanisms are indeed more expressive and less fragile compared to their syntax-based counterparts. In this paper we present a first study comparing semantics-and syntax-based composition mechanisms in aspect-oriented requirements engineering. In our empirical study the semantics-based compositions examined were found to be indeed more expressive and less fragile. The semantics-based compositions in the study also required one to reason about composition interdependencies early on hence potentially reducing the overhead of revisions arising from later trade-off analysis and stakeholder negotiations. However, this added to the overhead of specifying the compositions themselves. Furthermore, since the semantics-based compositions considered in the study were based on natural language analysis, they required initial effort investment into lexicon building as well as strongly depended on advanced tool support to expose the natural language semantics.

show abstract

Section: Threats Arising From Chosen Artefacts and Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Aov-graphmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Semantic vs. syntactic compositions in aspect-oriented requirements engineering

Chitchyan

Greenwood

Sampaio

et al. 2009

Proceedings of the 8th ACM International Conference on Aspect-Oriented Software Development

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Aspect-oriented model transformations make it possible the propagation of information between the activities of the software development process. In the mapping from AspectualACME to aSideML, we start from requirements and produce an AspectualACME description by applying the transformations defined in [3].…”

Section: Transformation From Aspectualacme To Asidemlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This paper presents MARISA-DP, a model-based approach that integrates aspect-oriented architecture and detailed project activities, receiving an architecture description generated from the requirements specification. The architecture model used as input of MARISA-DP process is a result of the mapping from requirements to architecture [3], respectively represented by AOV-graph [4], an aspect-oriented requirements language, and AspectualACME [5], an aspect-oriented architectural description language. In addition, this model is automatically generated by Marisa (Mapping Requirements do Software Archicteture) [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

MARISA-DP -- from architecture to design

Medeiros

Batista

Chávez

2009

Proceedings of the 15th Workshop on Early Aspects

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In general, aspect-oriented approaches associated to different activities in the software development process are independent and the new models and artifacts are not aligned or inserted in a coherent process. The model-driven development, where several models and the correspondence among them are rigorously specified, can support the integration among AO approaches that handle different activities of the software process. This paper presents MARISA-DP, a model based development approach to integrate aspect-oriented architecture and detailed project, aligning their models and artifacts. The proposed approach is part of a rigorous and coherent process where each activity has AO models (and corresponding metamodels) and a set of transformations among the models. To illustrate the viability of the proposed approach, this paper presents a mapping between AspectualACME, an aspect-oriented architectural description language, and aSideML, a modeling language to aspect-oriented detailed project. This mapping is formalized using ATL transformation rules.

show abstract

Mastering crosscutting architectural decisions with aspects

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY When reflecting upon driving system requirements such as security and availability, software architects often face decisions that have a broadly scoped impact on the software architecture. These decisions are the core of the architecting process because they typically have implications intertwined in a multitude of architectural elements and across multiple views. Without a modular representation and management of those crucial choices, architects cannot properly communicate, assess and reason about their crosscutting effects. The result is a number of architectural breakdowns, such as misinformed architectural evaluation, time‐consuming trade‐off analysis and unmanageable traceability. This paper presents an architectural documentation approach in which aspects are exploited as a natural way to capture widely‐scoped design decisions in a modular fashion. The approach consists of a simple high‐level notation to describe crosscutting decisions, and a supplementary language that allows architects to formally define how such architectural decisions affect the final architectural decomposition according to different views. On the basis of two case studies, we have systematically assessed to what extent our approach: (i) supports the description of heterogeneous forms of crosscutting architecture decisions, (ii) improves the support for architecture modularity analysis, and (iii) enhances upstream and downstream traceability of crosscutting architectural decisions. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

On the Symbiosis of Aspect-Oriented Requirements and Architectural Descriptions

Cited by 13 publications

References 13 publications

Semantic vs. syntactic compositions in aspect-oriented requirements engineering

Semantic vs. syntactic compositions in aspect-oriented requirements engineering

MARISA-DP -- from architecture to design

Mastering crosscutting architectural decisions with aspects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About