Using UML2.0 and GG for Describing the Dynamic of Software Architectures

Kacem, Mohamed Hadj; Jmaïel, Mohamed; Kacem, Ahmed Hadj; Drira, Khalil

doi:10.1109/icita.2005.304

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In [16], authors enrich an existing component-based frameworka model with dynamic reconfigurations making the system evolvewith a new reconfiguration operation which substitutes components by other components, and to study its impact on sequences of dynamic reconfigurations using the B method tools. In [17], [18], authors propose a unified approach based on graphic representation to describe the dynamic component-based architectures. It allows to describe the static and the dynamic aspects as well as the architectural constraints to be respected during the system evolution.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Formal modeling for verifying SCA composition

Hamel¹,

Graiet²,

Kmimech³

2015

2015 IEEE 9th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceWith the emergence of Service Component Architecture (SCA), all interests were focused on representing this architecture in a formal way in order to be able to prevent the specifications failures. In this context, our recent works were interested in formalising structural properties of the SCA specifications, particularly to defining structural compatibility between connected services. In fact, verifying structural compatibility is necessary but not sufficient. In this paper we intend to represent, in a first step, the SCA behavioral properties by means of Event-B invariants and events. In a second step, we established behavioral compatibility between services interacting together which is considered as a delicate task and has a great importance in guaranteeing reliable communication between services. At last, we propose an Event-B based approach so as to configure the SCA composition dynamically. We focus, particularly, on the correctional dynamic such as substituting faulty services and components. The consistency and the validity of the obtained model have been proved by the Event-B dedicated tool

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Formal modeling for verifying SCA composition

Hamel¹,

Graiet²,

Kmimech³

2015

2015 IEEE 9th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Owing to lack of acquaintance the software designers’, Petri net does not have much use. Also ADL describe only static structure of architecture [7, 8]. On the other hand, UML is used for the entire software development process.…”

Section: Background and Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Early performance assessment in component‐based software systems

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most techniques used to assess the qualitative characteristics of software are done in testing phase of software development. Assessment of performance in the early software development process is particularly important to risk management. Software architecture, as the first product, plays an important role in the development of the complex software systems. Using software architecture, quality attributes (such as performance, reliability and security) can be evaluated at the early stages of the software development. In this study, the authors present a framework for taking the advantages of architectural description to evaluate software performance. To do so, the authors describe static structure and architectural behaviour of a software system as the sequence diagram and the component diagram of the Unified Modelling Language (UML), respectively; then, the described model is automatically converted into the 'interface automata', which provides the formal foundation for the evaluation. Finally, the evaluation of architectural performance is performed using 'queuing theory'. The proposed framework can help the software architect to choose an appropriate architecture in terms of quality or remind him/her of making necessary changes in the selected architecture. The main difference among the proposed method and other methods is that the proposed method benefits the informal description methods, such as UML, to describe the architecture of software systems; it also enjoys a formal and lightweight language, called 'interface automata' to provide the infrastructure for verification and evaluation.

show abstract

“…As a modeling language, UML can provide a well-defined visual method to design the software architecture and it is easy to express and understand with a set of graphic notations. Mohamed Hadj Kacem et al [26] uses UML2.0 and graph grammar rewriting rules to specify the static and dynamic aspects of software architecture respectively. But UML fails to implement the verification of the dynamic evolution of software architecture.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic software architectures

Huang

Chen

et al. 2012

Proceedings of the Fourth Asia-Pacific Symposium on Internetware

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Compared to the traditional software architecture, Dynamic Software Architectures (DSAs) should be able to describe the changes of the system and to effect modifications during system execution, especially for dynamic evolution. To reflect the changes during system execution, we present a formalism for describing architecture structure and interaction behavior, and we also specify four evolution rules for software architecture. Our work expands the idea in three directions. The first is to formalize the architecture structure and interaction behavior including components, connectors and an architectural reference model. The second direction is that we formalize four dynamic evolution rules which DSAs should support, that is, addition, removal, replacement and reconfiguration. Another direction is that we verify software architecture consistency and integrity after dynamic evolution. We use a client/server application as a running example throughout the paper to demonstrate our approach. Our work provides a precise formal specification for software architecture and a rigorous verification for dynamic evolution.

show abstract

Using UML2.0 and GG for Describing the Dynamic of Software Architectures

Cited by 4 publications

References 7 publications

Formal modeling for verifying SCA composition

Formal modeling for verifying SCA composition

Early performance assessment in component‐based software systems

Dynamic software architectures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About