Identifying “Interesting” Component Assemblies for NFRs Using Imperfect Information
- 311 Downloads
Component-based software elaboration becomes unwieldy for some practical situations with large numbers of components for which information is imperfect (incomplete, imprecise and/or uncertain). This article addresses the problem of identifying “interesting” component sets for some given non-functional requirements (NFRs), using imperfect information about large number of components. Rather than providing completely specified solutions, this approach allows architects to identify and compare whole assemblies, and focus eventual information- improvement efforts only on those components that are part of candidate assemblies. The proposed technique builds on the Azimut layered architectural abstractions, adapting an algorithmic approach used to mine association rules, and taking three parameters: a minimal “support score” that candidate assemblies must meet, and two credibility-value thresholds about the catalog themselves. An example illustrates the approach.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.Ncube, C., Maiden, N.: PORE: Procurement-oriented requirements engineering method for the CBSE development paradigm. In: International Workshop on Component-based Software Engineering (1999)Google Scholar
- 4.Ochs, M., Pfahl, D., Chrobok-Diening, G., Nothhelfer-Kolb, B.: A COTS acquisition process: Definition and application experience. In: ESCOM 2000: 11th European Software Control and Metric Conference (2000)Google Scholar
- 5.Phillips, B.C., Polen, S.M.: Add decision analysis to your COTS selection process. The Journal of Defense Software Engineering, Software Technology Support Center Crosstalk (2002)Google Scholar
- 7.Douglas, K., Laurence, B.: Applying social-technical approach for COTS selection. In: Proceedings of 4th UKAIS Conference, University of York. McGraw-Hill, New York (1999)Google Scholar
- 8.Alves, C., Castro, J.: CRE: A systematic method for COTS components selection. In: SBES 2001: 15th Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering (2001)Google Scholar
- 9.Chung, L., Cooper, K.: COTS-aware requirements engineering and software architecting. Software Engineering Research and Practice, 57–63 (2004)Google Scholar
- 10.Group, O.M.: MDA Guide Version 1.0.1. Object Management Group (OMG) (2003)Google Scholar
- 11.Gokhale, A., Balasubramanian, K., Lu, T.: CoSMIC: addressing crosscutting deployment and configuration concerns of distributed real-time and embedded systems. In: OOPSLA 2004: Companion to the 19th Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications, pp. 218–219. ACM Press, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Cao, F., Bryant, B.R., Burt, C.C., Raje, R.R., Olson, A.M., Augustona, M.: A component assembly approach based on aspect-oriented generative domain modeling. In: Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, SC 2004: Procs. of the Software Composition Workshop, Science Direct, vol. 114, pp. 119–136 (2005)Google Scholar
- 14.Britton, C., Bye, P.: IT Architectures and Middleware: Strategies for Building Large, Integrated Systems, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
- 15.López, C., Astudillo, H.: Multidimensional catalogs for systematic exploration of component-based design spaces. In: IWASE 2006: 1st International Workshop on Advanced Software Engineering. Proceedings of IFIP World Congress 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
- 17.Agrawal, R., Srikant, R.: Fast algorithms for mining association rules, pp. 580–592. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1998)Google Scholar