Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Software and Systems Modeling
Published in: Software and Systems Modeling 2/2014

01-05-2014 | Theme Section Paper

Evolution styles: foundations and models for software architecture evolution

Authors: Jeffrey M. Barnes, David Garlan, Bradley Schmerl

Published in: Software and Systems Modeling | Issue 2/2014

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

As new market opportunities, technologies, platforms, and frameworks become available, systems require large-scale and systematic architectural restructuring to accommodate them. Today’s architects have few techniques to help them plan this architecture evolution. In particular, they have little assistance in planning alternative evolution paths, trading off various aspects of the different paths, or knowing best practices for particular domains. In this paper, we describe an approach for planning and reasoning about architecture evolution. Our approach focuses on providing architects with the means to model prospective evolution paths and supporting analysis to select among these candidate paths. To demonstrate the usefulness of our approach, we show how it can be applied to an actual architecture evolution. In addition, we present some theoretical results about our evolution path constraint specification language.
previous article Change patterns
next article Unique identification of elements in evolving software models

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Footnotes
1
In Sect. 3.2, we mentioned that architectural styles can be captured by means of UML profiles. In this case, these architectural-style profiles should extend the profile of Fig. 2. Incidentally, UML profiles could be used much more extensively than the way we present here. We could use them to define a much more elaborate base style that serves as a specialization of UML to formal software architecture modeling. That is, we could define a general profile for representing software architectures (or perhaps several profiles for different architectural views). However, the problem of defining a UML profile for software architecture is not particularly relevant to the topic at hand, is not necessary for the case study we present in Sect. 5, and has already been explored in previous work, so we do not do so here.
 
2
This is “weak next,” meaning that \(\mathord {\bigcirc }\phi \) is interpreted to be true in the final state of a sequence. “Strong next” can be defined in terms of the weak next operator: \(\bar{\bigcirc }\phi := \lnot \mathord {\bigcirc }\lnot \phi \).
 
3
In the program verification community, the problem of checking a finite, single trace is known as runtime verification, with the term model checking reserved for checking entire state structures [6].
 
Literature
1.
Abi-Antoun, M., Aldrich, J., Nahas, N., Schmerl, B., Garlan, D.: Differencing and merging of architectural views. In: Proceedings of the 21st IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2006), pp. 47–58. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2006)
2.
Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A.: A really temporal logic. In: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 164–169. IEEE (1989)
3.
4.
Baldwin, C.Y., Clark, K.B.: Design Rules, vol. 1. MIT, Cambridge (1999)
5.
Barnes, J.M.: NASA’s Advanced Multimission Operations System: a case study in software architecture evolution. In: Proceedings of the 8th International ACM SIGSOFT Conference on the Quality of Software Architectures (QoSA’12), pp. 3–12. ACM (2012)
6.
Bauer, A., Leucker, M., Schallhart, C.: Runtime verification for LTL and TLTL. ACM T. Softw. Eng.& Meth. 20(4), (2011)
7.
Bérard, B., Bidoit, M., Finkel, A., Laroussinie, F., Petit, A., Petrucci, L., Schnoebelen, P., McKenzie, P.: Systems and Software Verification: Model-Checking Techniques and Tools. Springer, Berlin (2001)CrossRef
8.
Berliner, B.: CVS II: parallelizing software development. In: Proceedings of the Winter 1990 USENIX Conference, pp. 341–352. USENIX, Berkeley (1990)
9.
10.
11.
Boehm, B.W.: Software Engineering Economics. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (1981)MATH
12.
Brown, N., Nord, R.L., Ozkaya, I., Pais, M.: Analysis and management of architectural dependencies in iterative release planning. In: Proceedings of the Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA’11), pp. 103–112. IEEE (2011)
13.
14.
Chaki, S., Sharygina, N., Sinha, N.: Verification of evolving software. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Specification and Verification of Component Based Systems (SAVCBS 2004), pp. 55–61. Iowa State University, Ames (2004)
15.
Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P.: Automatic verification of finite-state concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications. ACM Trans. Progr. Lang. Syst. 8(2), 244–263 (1986)CrossRefMATH
16.
Clements, P., Bachmann, F., Bass, L., Garlan, D., Ivers, J., Little, R., Merson, P., Nord, R., Stafford, J.: Documenting Software Architectures: Views and Beyond, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Upper Saddle River (2011)
17.
18.
Cunningham, W.: The WyCash portfolio management system. In: Addendum to the Proceedings of the Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA’92), pp. 29–30. ACM, New York (1992)
19.
20.
Demri, S., Lazić, R., Sangnier, A.: Model checking memoryful linear-time logics over one-counter automata. Theor. Comput. Sci. 411(22–24), 2298–2316 (2010)CrossRefMATH
21.
22.
Erder, M., Pureur, P.: Transitional architectures for enterprise evolution. IT Pro 8(3), 10–17 (2006)CrossRef
23.
Franceschet, M., de Rijke, M.: Model checking hybrid logics (with an application to semistructured data). J. Appl. Logic 4(3), 279–304 (2006)CrossRefMATH
24.
Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1994)
25.
Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S.: Computers and Intractability. Freeman, San Francisco (1979)MATH
26.
Garlan, D., Barnes, J.M., Schmerl, B., Celiku, O.: Evolution styles: foundations and tool support for software architecture evolution. In: Proceedings of the Joint Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture and European Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA/ECSA 2009), pp. 131–140. IEEE (2009)
27.
Garlan, D., Monroe, R., Wile, D.: Acme: an architecture description interchange language. In: Proceedings of the Conference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research (CASCON ’97), pp. 169–183. ACM, New York (1997)
28.
Garlan, D., Schmerl, B.: Ævol: A tool for defining and planning architecture evolution. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2009), pp. 591–594. IEEE, Piscataway (2009)
29.
Gerevini, A.E., Haslum, P., Long, D., Saetti, A., Dimopoulos, Y.: Deterministic planning in the fifth international planning competition: PDDL3 and experimental evaluation of the planners. Artif. Intell. 173(5–6), 619–668 (2009)CrossRefMATHMathSciNet
30.
Ghezzi, C., Jazayeri, M., Mandrioli, D.: Fundamentals of Software Engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (1991)MATH
31.
32.
33.
Goranko, V.: Temporal logic with reference pointers. In: Gabbay, D.M., Ohlbach, H.J. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Conference on Temporal Logic (ICTL ’94), LNCS, vol. 827, pp. 133–148. Springer, Berlin (1994)
34.
Grunske, L.: Formalizing architectural refactorings as graph transformation systems. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing (SNPD 2005), pp. 324–329. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2005)
35.
Henzinger, T.A.: Half-order modal logic: How to prove real-time properties. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC’90), pp. 281–296. ACM (1990)
36.
Inverardi, P., Wolf, A.L.: Formal specification and analysis of software architectures using the chemical abstract machine model. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 21(4), 373–386 (1995)CrossRef
37.
Ivers, J., Clements, P., Garlan, D., Nord, R., Schmerl, B., Silva, J.R.O.: Documenting component and connector views with UML 2.0. Tech. Rep. CMU/SEI-2004-TR-008, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh (2004)
38.
Kazman, R., Bass, L., Klein, M.: The essential components of software architecture design and analysis. J. Syst. Softw. 79(8), 1207–1216 (2006)CrossRef
39.
Lamport, L.: The temporal logic of actions. ACM Trans. Progr. Lang. Syst. 16(3), 872–923 (1994)CrossRef
40.
41.
Le Goaer, O.: Styles d’Évolution dans les Architectures Logicielles. Ph.D. thesis, LINA, Nantes (2009)
42.
Le Goaer, O., Tamzalit, D., Oussalah, M.: Evolution shelf: reusing evolution expertise within component-based software architectures. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC 2008), pp. 311–318. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2008)
43.
Magee, J., Dulay, N., Eisenbach, S., Kramer, J.: Specifying distributed software architectures. In: Schäfer, W., Botella, P. (eds.) Proceedings of the European Software Engineering Conference (ESEC ’95), LNCS, vol. 989, pp. 137–153. Springer, Berlin (1995)
44.
Markey, N., Schnoebelen, P.: Model checking a path. In: Amadio, R., Lugiez, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Conference on Concurrency Theory (CONCUR 2003), LNCS, vol. 2761, pp. 251–265. Springer, Berlin (2003)
45.
Medvidovic, N., Taylor, R.N.: A classification and comparison framework for software architecture description languages. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 26(1), 70–93 (2000)CrossRef
46.
Murphy, G.C., Notkin, D., Sullivan, K.: Software reflexion models: bridging the gap between source and high-level models. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (SIGSOFT ’95), pp. 18–28. ACM, New York (1995)
47.
48.
49.
50.
Opdyke, W.F., Johnson, R.E.: Refactoring: an aid in designing application frameworks and evolving object-oriented systems. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Object-Oriented Programming Emphasizing Practical Applications (SOOPPA 1990), pp. 145–160. Marist College, Poughkeepsie (1990)
51.
Oussalah, M., Sadou, N., Tamzalit, D.: SAEV: a model to face evolution problem in software architecture. In: Duchien, L., D’Hondt, M., Mens, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the International ERCIM Workshop on Software Evolution 2006, pp. 137–146. USTL, Lille (2006)
52.
Ozkaya, I., Kazman, R., Klein, M.: Quality-attribute-based economic valuation of architectural patterns. Tech. Rep. CMU/SEI-2007-TR-003. Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh (2007)
53.
Parnas, D.L.: Information distribution aspects of design methodology. In: Proceedings of IFIP Congress ’71, pp. 339–344. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1972)
54.
Perry, D.E., Wolf, A.L.: Foundations for the study of software architecture. ACM SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 17(4), 40–42 (1992)CrossRef
55.
Richardson, J.: Supporting lists in a data model (a timely approach). In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB’92), pp. 127–138. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (1992)
56.
Rushby, J.: Bus architectures for safety-critical embedded systems. In: Henzinger, T.A., Kirsch, C.M. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Workshop on Embedded Software (EMSOFT 2001), LNCS, vol. 2211, pp. 306–323. Springer (2001)
57.
Schmerl, B., Garlan, D.: AcmeStudio: supporting style-centered architecture development. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2004), pp. 704–05. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2004)
58.
Sefika, M., Sane, A., Campbell, R.H.: Monitoring compliance of a software system with its high-level design models. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 1996), pp. 387–396. IEEE, Los Alamitos (1996)
59.
Shaw, M., Garlan, D.: Software Architecture: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (1996)MATH
60.
61.
Spitznagel, B., Garlan, D.: A compositional approach for constructing connectors. In: Kazman, R., Kruchten, P., Verhoef, C., van Vliet, H. (eds.) Proceedings of the Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA 2001), pp. 148–157. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2001)
62.
Spitznagel, B., Garlan, D.: A compositional formalization of connector wrappers. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2003), pp. 374–384. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2003)
63.
Tamzalit, D., Oussalah, M., Le Goaer, O., Seriai, A.D.: Updating software architectures: a style-based approach. In: Arabnia, H.R., Reza, H. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering Research& Practice (SERP’06), pp. 336–342. CSREA, Las Vegas (2006)
64.
Tamzalit, D., Sadou, N., Oussalah, M.: Evolution problem within component-based software architecture. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Software Engineering& Knowledge Engineering (SEKE 2006), pp. 296–301. Knowledge Systems Institute, Skokie (2006)
65.
Taylor, R.N., Medvidovic, N., Anderson, K.M., Robbins, J.E., Nies, K.A., Oriezy, P., Dubrow, D.L.: A component- and message-based architectural style for GUI software. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 22(6), 390–406 (1996)CrossRef
66.
67.
68.
Wermelinger, M., Fiadeiro, J.L.: A graph transformation approach to software architecture reconfiguration. Sci. Comput. Program. 44(2), 133–155 (2002)CrossRefMATH
69.
Yourdon, E., Constantine, L.L.: Structured Design. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (1979)MATH
Metadata
Title
Evolution styles: foundations and models for software architecture evolution
Authors
Jeffrey M. Barnes
David Garlan
Bradley Schmerl
Publication date
01-05-2014
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Software and Systems Modeling / Issue 2/2014
Print ISSN: 1619-1366
Electronic ISSN: 1619-1374
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-012-0301-9

Other articles of this Issue 2/2014

Software and Systems Modeling 2/2014 Go to the issue

Theme Section Paper

Modeling and enforcing secure object flows in process-driven SOAs: an integrated model-driven approach

Theme Section Paper

Adapting transformations to metamodel changes via external transformation composition

Theme Section Paper

A model-driven method for enacting the design-time QoS analysis of business processes

Theme Section Paper

A semi-formal description of migrating domain-specific models with evolving domains

Theme Section Paper

On the modeling and generation of service-oriented tool chains

Editorial

Modeling big smart data

Premium Partner

    Image Credits