EVALUATING COMPONENT ARCHITECTURE VISUALIZATION TOOLS - Criteria and Case Study

Lukas Holy, Jaroslav Snajberk, Premek Brada

Abstract

There are many software architecture modeling tools and their use is very common in practice. But a closer look reveals that in the ever more important area of component-based architectures, system architects or component assemblers are constrained by the lack of good model representations. On one hand, a generic representation like UML provides insufficient support for component-specific needs, on the other hand, tools focused on component development sometimes force the user to learn new visual syntax specific for the component model. Advanced features offered by the tools on top of basic architecture visualization are often limited. In this paper we propose a set of criteria for the evaluation of tools for component architecture visualization, considering the needs of both architectural modeling and analytical tasks. These criteria are thoroughly discussed and their use is shown on a case study which evaluates a current state of the art tool.

References

  1. Becker, S., Koziolek, H., and Reussner, R. (2009). The palladio component model for model-driven performance prediction. Journal of Systems and Software, 82(1):3 - 22. Special Issue: Software Performance - Modeling and Analysis.
  2. Beugnard, A., Jézéquel, J.-M., Plouzeau, N., and Watkins, D. (1999). Making components contract aware. Computer, 32(7):38-45.
  3. Brada, P. (2008). The CoSi component model: Reviving the black-box nature of components. In Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Component Based Software Engineering (CBSE), volume 5282 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Karlsruhe, Germany. Springer Verlag.
  4. Bures, T., Hnetynka, P., and Plasil, F. (2006). SOFA 2.0: Balancing Advanced Features in a Hierarchical Component Model. In SERA, pages 40-48. IEEE Computer Society.
  5. Crnkovic, I., Chaudron, M., Sentilles, S., and Vulgarakis, A. (2007). A classification framework for component models. In Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Software Engineering and Practice in Sweden.
  6. Favre, J.-M. and Cervantes, H. (2002). Visualization of component-based software. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Visualizing Software for Understanding and Analysis, pages 51-, Washington, DC, USA. IEEE Computer Society.
  7. Hansson, H., Akerholm, M., Crnkovic, I., and Törngren, M. (2004). SaveCCM - a component model for safety-critical real-time systems. In Proceedings of the 30th EUROMICRO Conference, pages 627-635, Los Alamitos, CA, USA. IEEE Computer Society.
  8. International Standard Organization (ISO/IEC) (2001). Informational technology - product quality - part 1: Quality model. International Standard ISO/IEC 9126.
  9. Kollman, R., Selonen, P., Stroulia, E., Systä, T., and Zündorf, A. (2002). A study on the current state of the art in tool-supported uml-based static reverse engineering. In van Deursen, A. and Burd, E., editors, Proceedings of the 9th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering (WCRE 2002). IEEE Computer Society.
  10. Kuhn, A., Erni, D., Loretan, P., and Nierstrasz, O. (2010). Software cartography: thematic software visualization with consistent layout. J. Softw. Maint. Evol., 22:191- 210.
  11. Lange, C. F., Chaudron, M. R., and Muskens, J. (2006). In practice: UML software architecture and design description. IEEE Software, 23(2):40- 46.
  12. Medvidovic, N., Rosenblum, D. S., Redmiles, D. F., and Robbins, J. E. (2002). Modeling software architectures in the unified modeling language. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., 11(1):257.
  13. Merle, P. and Stefani, J.-B. (2008). A formal specification of the Fractal component model in Alloy. Research Report RR-6721, INRIA.
  14. Moody, D. and van Hillegersberg, J. (2009). Evaluating the visual syntax of UML: An analysis of the cognitive effectiveness of the UML family of diagrams. In Gaevic, D., Lmmel, R., and Van Wyk, E., editors, Software Language Engineering, volume 5452 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 16-34. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg.
  15. Object Management Group (2009). UML superstructure specification. OMG specification formal/2009-02-02.
  16. OMG (2006). CORBA components. OMG Specification formal/02-12-06, Object management Group 2006.
  17. OMG (2011). UML 2.4 specification. OMG document ptc/2010-11-14, Object Management Group 2011.
  18. OSGi Alliance (2009). OSGi service platform v4.2. Core specification, OSGi Alliance 2009.
  19. Plás?il, F. and Vis?novskÉ, S. (2002). Behavior protocols for software components. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28(10).
  20. Ratneshwer and Tripathi, A. K. (2010). Dependence analysis of software component. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes, 35:1-9.
  21. Siau, K. and Tian, Y. (2009). A semiotic analysis of unified modeling language graphical notations. Requirements Engineering, 14:15-26. 10.1007/s00766-008-0071-7.
  22. Sun Microsystems (2006). Enterprise JavaBeans, Version 3.0. EJB Core Contracts and Requirements. JSR220 Final Release.
  23. Szyperski, C. (2002). Component Software, Second Edition. ACM Press, Addison-Wesley.
  24. Telea, A. and Voinea, L. (2004). A Framework for Interactive Visualization of Component-Based Software. In Proceedings of the 30th EUROMICRO Conference, pages 567-574, Washington, DC, USA. IEEE Computer Society.
  25. Telea, A., Voinea, L., and Sassenburg, H. (2010). Visual tools for software architecture understanding: A stakeholder perspective. IEEE Softw., 27:46-53.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Holy L., Snajberk J. and Brada P. (2012). EVALUATING COMPONENT ARCHITECTURE VISUALIZATION TOOLS - Criteria and Case Study . In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Graphics Theory and Applications and International Conference on Information Visualization Theory and Applications - Volume 1: IVAPP, (VISIGRAPP 2012) ISBN 978-989-8565-02-0, pages 737-742. DOI: 10.5220/0003861607370742


in Bibtex Style

@conference{ivapp12,
author={Lukas Holy and Jaroslav Snajberk and Premek Brada},
title={EVALUATING COMPONENT ARCHITECTURE VISUALIZATION TOOLS - Criteria and Case Study},
booktitle={Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Graphics Theory and Applications and International Conference on Information Visualization Theory and Applications - Volume 1: IVAPP, (VISIGRAPP 2012)},
year={2012},
pages={737-742},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0003861607370742},
isbn={978-989-8565-02-0},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Graphics Theory and Applications and International Conference on Information Visualization Theory and Applications - Volume 1: IVAPP, (VISIGRAPP 2012)
TI - EVALUATING COMPONENT ARCHITECTURE VISUALIZATION TOOLS - Criteria and Case Study
SN - 978-989-8565-02-0
AU - Holy L.
AU - Snajberk J.
AU - Brada P.
PY - 2012
SP - 737
EP - 742
DO - 10.5220/0003861607370742