基于复用的软件构架评估方法及其在嫦娥工程中的应用

胡智新; 李春来; 欧阳自远

基于复用的软件构架评估方法及其在嫦娥工程中的应用

1.
中国科学院国家天文台, 北京 100012
2.
中国科学院研究生院, 北京 100039

基金项目:

中国科学院知识创新工程项目 KGCX2SW4153

详细信息

作者简介:
胡智新(1974-), 男, 博士生, 主要研究领域为软件工程、软件体系结构和软件产品线. E-mail: hzx@bao.ac.cn

中图分类号: TP301
计量
- 文章访问数: 3162
- HTML全文浏览量: 84
- PDF下载量: 2
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2005-12-28
- 刊出日期: 2006-05-25

Reuse-Based Software Architecture Evaluation Methods

1.
National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100012, China
2.
Graduate School, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100039, China

摘要

摘要: 针对目前软件构架评估方法未考虑复用构架评估知识的局限性, 提出一种新的、基于构架评估知识复用的软件构架评估模式(包括软件构架评估方法元模型和应用框架).运用一致的评估元模型, 建立高层模型, 辅助构架评估决策; 并在应用框架支持下, 系统地复用评估历史数据, 将SAEM的活动整合为一个系统的、可复用的、可管理的过程.该方法已成功应用于中国探月工程地面应用系统的软件构架评估, 降低了深空探测航天复杂系统的研制风险.
- 软件构架 /
- 软件构架评估 /
- 软件构架评估模式 /
- 场景
Abstract: The limit of the current scenario-based software architecture evaluation (SAE) is not taken into account the knowledge reuse of SAE. A new reused-based software architecture evaluation pattern, which includes meta-model and application framework, is proposed in this paper for integrating the SAE into a systematic and reusable procedure. Exploiting the meta-model and the application framework of SAE can make decision of SAE in high-level and reuse the historic data of SAE. Finally, this pattern is successfully applied and validated in the software architecture of the ground system for data, research and application of lunar exploration program of China. The pattern reduces the research risk of deep-space exploration complex system.
- software architecture /
- software architecture evaluation /
- software architecture evaluation patterns /
- scenario

HTML全文

图 1 软件构架评估元模型

Fig. 1. Meta-model of SAEM

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 软件构架评估元模型应用概念图

Fig. 2. Application of meta-model of SAEM

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 软件构架评估应用框架的过程模型图

Fig. 3. Process model for application framework of software architecture evaluation

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 基于场景的软件构架评估方法对比分析

Table 1. Analysis result of scenario-based software architecture evaluation methods

表 2 标注了优先级的GSDAS效用树子集

Table 2. Prioritized utility tree subset of GSDAS

参考文献(17)

[1]	Abowd, G., Bass, L., Clements, P., et al., 1996. Recommended best industrial practices for system architecture evaluation. Technique Report, CMU/SEI-96-TR-025.
[2]	Barbacci, M., 2003a. Using the architecture tradeoff analysis method (ATAM) to evaluate the software architecture for a product line of avionics systems: A case study. Technique Report, CMU/SEI-2003-TN-012, SEI, Carnegie Mellon University. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/03.reports/03tn012.html.
[3]	Barbacci, M., 2003b. Quality attribute workshops (QAWs). Third Edition. Technique Report, CMU/SEI-2003-TR-016, SEI, Carnegie Mellon University. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/03.reports/03tr016.html.
[4]	Bass, L., Clement, P., Kazman, R., 1998. Software architecture in practice. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
[5]	Clement, P., 2000. Active review for intermediate designs. Technique Report, CMU/SEI-2000-TN-009, SEI, Carnegie Mellon University. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/00.reports/00tn009.html.
[6]	Clement, P., Kazman, R., Kelein, M., 2002. Evaluating software architectures: Methods and case studies. Addison Wesley, MA.
[7]	IEEE, 1998. IEEE glossary of software engineering terminology, 610.12-1990.
[8]	Kazman, R., Abowd, G., Bass, L., et al., 1994. SAAM: A method for quality through formal technical review. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Software Engineering, Sorrento, Italy, May, 113-122.
[9]	Kazman, R., Abowd, G., Bass, L., et al., 1996. Scenariobased analysis of software architecture. IEEE Software, 13 (6): 47-55. doi: 10.1109/52.542294
[10]	Kazman, R., 1998. The architecture tradeoff analysis method. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (ICECCS98).
[11]	Kazman, R., Asundi, J., Klein, M., 2001. Quantifying the costs and benefits of architectural decisions. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 23), Toronto, Canada, May, 297-306.
[12]	Kruchten, P. B., 1995. The 4+1 view model of architecture. IEEE Software, 12 (6): 42-50.
[13]	Li, W., Henry, S., 1993. Object-oriented metrics that predict maintainability. Systems and Software, 23 (2): 111-122.
[14]	Moore, M., Kazman, R., Klein, M., et al., 2003. Quantifying the value of architecture design decisions: Lessons from the field. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 25), Portland, Oregon, May.
[15]	Parnas, D. L., Weiss, D., 1985. Active design review: Principles and practices. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Software Engineering.
[16]	Smith, C. U., Woodside, M., 1999. Performance validation at early stages of software development. The Journal of Systems and Software. http://www.perfeng.com/papers/smitwood.pdf.
[17]	Williams, L. G., Smith, C. U., 2003. PASASM: A method for the performance assessment of software architecture. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP2002), Rome, Italy, July.