research-article

Supporting Software Evolution by Integrating DSL-based Architectural Abstraction and Understandability Related Metrics

Authors:

Srdjan Stevanetic,

Thomas Haitzer,

Uwe ZdunAuthors Info & Claims

ECSAW '14: Proceedings of the 2014 European Conference on Software Architecture Workshops

Article No.: 19, Pages 1 - 8

https://doi.org/10.1145/2642803.2642822

Published: 25 August 2014 Publication History

Abstract

Software architecture erosion and architectural drift are well known software evolution problems. While there exist a number of approaches to address these problems, so far in these approaches the understandability of the resulting architectural models (e.g., component models) is seldom studied. However, reduced understandability of the architectural models might lead to problems similar to architecture erosion and architectural drift. To address this problem, we propose to extend our existing DSL-based architecture abstraction approach with empirically evaluated understandability metrics. While the DSL-based architecture abstraction approach enables software architects to keep source code and architecture consistent, the understandability metrics extensions enables them, while working with the DSL, to continuously judge the understandability of the architectural component models they create with the DSL. We studied the applicability of our approach in a case study of an existing open source system.

References

[1]

F. B. e. Abreu, G. Pereira, and P. Sousa. A coupling-guided cluster analysis approach to reengineer the modularity of object-oriented systems. In Proceedings of the Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering, CSMR '00, pages 13--, Washington, DC, USA, 2000. IEEE Computer Society.

Digital Library

[2]

J. M. Barnes, D. Garlan, and B. R. Schmerl. Evolution styles: foundations and models for software architecture evolution. Software and System Modeling, 13(2):649--678, 2014.

Digital Library

[3]

P. Bhattacharya, M. Iliofotou, I. Neamtiu, and M. Faloutsos. Graph-based analysis and prediction for software evolution. In ICSE'12, pages 419--429, 2012.

Digital Library

[4]

E. Bouwers, J. P. Correia, A. Deursen, and J. Visser. Quantifying the Analyzability of Software Architectures. In 2011 Ninth Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture, pages 83--92. IEEE, June 2011.

Digital Library

[5]

P. Clements, D. Garlan, L. Bass, J. Stafford, R. Nord, J. Ivers, and R. Little. Documenting Software Architectures: Views and Beyond. Pearson Education, 2002.

Digital Library

[6]

C. E. Cuesta, E. Navarro, D. E. Perry, and C. Roda. Evolution styles: using architectural knowledge as an evolution driver. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 25(9):957--980, 2013.

[7]

A. Egyed. Consistent adaptation and evolution of class diagrams during refinement. In Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering, 7th International Conference, FASE 2004, ETAPS 2004 Barcelona, Spain, volume 2984 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 37--53. Springer, 2004.

[8]

M. O. Elish. Exploring the relationships between design metrics and package understandability: A case study. In ICPC, pages 144--147. IEEE Computer Society, 2010.

Digital Library

[9]

V. Gupta and J. K. Chhabra. Package coupling measurement in object-oriented software. J. Comput. Sci. Technol., 24(2):273--283, Mar. 2009.

Digital Library

[10]

V. Gupta and J. K. Chhabra. Package level cohesion measurement in object-oriented software. J. Braz. Comp. Soc., 18(3):251--266, 2012.

[11]

T. Haitzer and U. Zdun. Semi-automated architectural abstraction specifications for supporting software evolution. Science of Computer Programming, 90, Part B(0):135--160, 2014. Special Issue on Component-Based Software Engineering and Software Architecture.

[12]

A. Jansen, J. van der Ven, P. Avgeriou, and D. K. Hammer. Tool support for architectural decisions. In Proceedings of the Sixth Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture, WICSA '07, pages 4--, Washington, DC, USA, 2007. IEEE Computer Society.

Digital Library

[13]

A. Kanjilal, S. Sengupta, and S. Bhattacharya. CAG: A Component Architecture Graph. In TENCON, IEEE Region 10 International Conference, 2008.

[14]

M. M. Lehman. Uncertainty in computer application and its control through the engineering of software. Journal of Software Maintenance, 1(1):3--27, Sept. 1989.

Digital Library

[15]

Y. Ma, K. He, D. Du, J. Liu, and Y. Yan. A complexity metrics set for large-scale object-oriented software systems. In Proceedings of the Sixth IEEE International Conference on Computer and Information Technology, CIT '06, pages 189--, Washington, DC, USA, 2006. IEEE Computer Society.

Digital Library

[16]

O. Maqbool and H. Babri. Hierarchical clustering for software architecture recovery. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 33:759--780, 2007.

Digital Library

[17]

R. C. Martin. Agile software development: principles, patterns, and practices. Prentice Hall PTR, 2003.

Digital Library

[18]

K. Mens, T. Mens, and M. Wermelinger. Maintaining software through intentional source-code views. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Software engineering and knowledge engineering, SEKE '02, pages 289--296, New York, NY, USA, 2002. ACM.

Digital Library

[19]

G. C. Murphy, D. Notkin, and K. Sullivan. Software reflexion models: bridging the gap between source and high-level models. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes, 20:18--28, 1995.

Digital Library

[20]

G. C. Murphy, D. Notkin, and K. Sullivan. Software reflexion models: bridging the gap between source and high-level models. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGSOFT symposium on Foundations of software engineering, SIGSOFT '95, pages 18--28, New York, NY, USA, 1995. ACM.

Digital Library

[21]

D. L. Parnas. Software aging. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE '94, pages 279--287, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 1994. IEEE Computer Society Press.

Digital Library

[22]

K. Sartipi. A software evaluation model using component association views. In IWPC, pages 259--268, 2001.

Digital Library

[23]

A. Sharma, P. S. Grover, and R. Kumar. Dependency analysis for component-based software systems. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes, 34(4):1--6, July 2009.

Digital Library

[24]

S. Stevanetic, M. A. Javed, and U. Zdun. Empirical evaluation of the understandability of architectural component diagrams. In Companion Proceedings of the 11th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA), WICSA 2014, Sydney, Australia, 2014. IEEE Computer Society.

Digital Library

[25]

S. Stevanetic and U. Zdun. Exploring the relationships between the understandability of components in architectural component models and component level metrics. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE), EASE 2014, London, UK, 2014. ACM Computer Society.

Digital Library

Cited By

Baabad AZulzalil HHassan SBaharom S(2022)Characterizing the Architectural Erosion Metrics: A Systematic Mapping StudyIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2022.315084710(22915-22940)Online publication date: 2022
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3150847
Mendivelso LGarcés KCasallas R(2018)Metric-centered and technology-independent architectural views for software comprehensionJournal of Software Engineering Research and Development10.1186/s40411-018-0060-66:1Online publication date: 4-Dec-2018
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40411-018-0060-6
Stevanetic SZdun U(2018)Supporting the analyzability of architectural component models - empirical findings and tool supportEmpirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-017-9583-4Online publication date: 29-Mar-2018
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-017-9583-4

Index Terms

Supporting Software Evolution by Integrating DSL-based Architectural Abstraction and Understandability Related Metrics
1. General and reference
  1. Cross-computing tools and techniques
    1. Metrics
2. Software and its engineering
  1. Software creation and management
    1. Designing software
      1. Software implementation planning
        Software design techniques
    2. Software development process management
  2. Software organization and properties
    1. Software system structures
      1. Software architectures

Recommendations

DSL-based support for semi-automated architectural component model abstraction throughout the software lifecycle
QoSA '12: Proceedings of the 8th international ACM SIGSOFT conference on Quality of Software Architectures

In this paper we present an approach for supporting the semi-automated abstraction of architectural models throughout the software lifecycle. It addresses the problem that the design and the implementation of a software system often drift apart as ...
Exploring the relationships between the understandability of components in architectural component models and component level metrics
EASE '14: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering

Architectural component models represent high level designs and are frequently used as a central view of architectural descriptions of software systems. The components in those models represent important high level organization units that group other ...
Empirical Study on the Effect of a Software Architecture Representation's Abstraction Level on the Architecture-Level Software Understanding
QSIC '14: Proceedings of the 2014 14th International Conference on Quality Software

Architectural component models represent high level designs and are frequently used as a central view of architectural descriptions of software systems. In this paper we present a study that examines the effect of the level of abstraction of the ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

ECSAW '14: Proceedings of the 2014 European Conference on Software Architecture Workshops

August 2014

214 pages

ISBN:9781450327787

DOI:10.1145/2642803

General Chair:
Uwe Zdun

Copyright © 2014 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 25 August 2014

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Conference

ECSAW '14

ECSAW '14: European Conference on Software Architecture Workshops

August 25 - 29, 2014

Vienna, Austria

Acceptance Rates

ECSAW '14 Paper Acceptance Rate 29 of 43 submissions, 67%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 80 of 120 submissions, 67%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

3
Total Citations
View Citations
135
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)8
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 27 Jul 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Baabad AZulzalil HHassan SBaharom S(2022)Characterizing the Architectural Erosion Metrics: A Systematic Mapping StudyIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2022.315084710(22915-22940)Online publication date: 2022
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3150847
Mendivelso LGarcés KCasallas R(2018)Metric-centered and technology-independent architectural views for software comprehensionJournal of Software Engineering Research and Development10.1186/s40411-018-0060-66:1Online publication date: 4-Dec-2018
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40411-018-0060-6
Stevanetic SZdun U(2018)Supporting the analyzability of architectural component models - empirical findings and tool supportEmpirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-017-9583-4Online publication date: 29-Mar-2018
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-017-9583-4

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents