A Graphical Representation of COTSbased Software Architectures

1
A Graphical Representation of COTS-based Software
Architectures

• Raúl Monge UTFSM, Valparaiso, Chile
• Carina Alves University College, UK
• Antonio Vallecillo Universidad de Málaga,
  Spain
• (Supported by WEST project)

2
Intro/Motivation

• Complex software systems require expressive
  notations for describing and analysing their
  software architectures
• ADLs are OK, but unfriendly
• UML is friendly, but not completely fit
• ...and then?

3
Goal of our work

• Propose a graphical notation for representing
  software architectures
• Using UML
• Only for COTS-based systems
• Not only for describing structures...
• ...but also with quality-related properties
• Future extensions for dealing with NFRs

4
Agenda

• Background
• Software Architectures, ADLs, UML
• Our proposal
• Description
• An example
• Conclusions
• Discussion
• Future work

5
Software Architecture

• Defines the high-level structure of a system, in
  terms of a collection of interacting components
  and the relationships among them
• Concepts/Elements
• Components (computational elements data stores)
• Ports (typed points of interaction)
• Connectors (interactions among components)
• Roles (typed roles that participants play)
• Systems (collections of components connectors)
• Properties (extra-functional and quality aspects)
• Styles (represent families of related systems)

6
ADLs

• Architectural Description Languages
• Usually allow
• The formal description of the structure and
  behavior of the software architecture
• Some kind of formal analysis (safety
  liveneness properties, composibility,...)
• Examples Wright, Darwin, C2, Rapide, ...
• Usually unfriendly or non-standard graphical
  notations
• Do not account for quality aspects or NFRs

7
UML for Software Architecture

• UML (1.x) does not offer a clear way for encoding
  and modeling SAs
• Semantic clashes between UML and SA concepts (eg.
  component, system,...)
• No clear mappings between UML and SA concepts
  (eg. component,...)
• Vague semantics of UML vs precise ADL semantics
• Semantic gaps for modeling SA concepts (eg.
  connector, style,...)
• OMG has included a request for modeling SA in the
  UML 2.0 Superstructre RFP

8
Our proposal

• Propose a graphical notation for representing
  software architectures
• Using UML
• Only for COTS-based systems
• Not only for describing structures...
• ...but also with quality-related properties
• Future extensions for dealing with NFRs

9
Elements of our proposal

• Structural elements
• Components and ports
• Connectors and roles
• Systems
• Styles
• Properties
• Behavioral elements
• Behavior
• Choreographies
• Quality attributes

10
Components
11
Connectors
12
Systems, Properties, Styles

• Systems
• modeled as UML subsystems
• Properties
• modeled by stereotyped notes
• Styles
• Expressed in OCL

13
Behavior
14
Choreography
15
Quality attributes
16
Qualifying elements

• Architectural elements (components, ports,
  connectors, roles, systems) can be qualified

17
An example
18
Conclusions

• Simple and easy-to-use notation
• Enables different kind of analyses
• Allows strutural and behavioral descriptions

19
Conclusions/Future work

• Simple and easy-to-use notation
• Enables different kind of analyses
• Allows strutural and behavioral descriptions

• Test and validate with real examples
• Tool support for the analyses
• Desribe NFRs and the rationale behind the
  architectural decisions

20
End of presentation

• http//www.lcc.uma.es/av/Publicaciones/02/ideas-7
  6.pps